Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Minister of State was asked—

Global Fund for Health

Neil Gerrard: If he will make a statement on the progress made by the global fund for health.

Hilary Benn: To date, the global fund has committed US $1.5 billion to more than 150 programmes in 93 countries, including the provision of anti-retrovirals in Haiti, Honduras and Rwanda, the expansion of tuberculosis treatment in China and Mongolia and the distribution of bed nets to prevent malaria in Tanzania and Sri Lanka. The UK strongly supported the creation of the fund and we have committed $280 million over the years 2002–08. We are working with the secretariat and other supporters of the fund to develop measures that we can all use to evaluate progress over the longer term.

Neil Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the fund develops the potential to really turn around the HIV, TB and malaria epidemics, and that to do that we need more countries to put their money and their faith into the fund so that individual countries do not try to impose their own priorities and monitoring mechanisms on the fund? Does he further agree that, especially where they are members of the board, they should work through the board to establish internationally agreed criteria for its work?

Hilary Benn: I agree very much with the point that my hon. Friend makes. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to his work as chair of the all-party group on AIDS. He is right: in supporting the creation of the fund it is important to ensure that it works alongside the existing bilateral programmes and the other UN agencies which are trying to fight the scourge of HIV/AIDS, in particular, and TB and malaria. We want the fund to add to the effectiveness of the work that is currently being undertaken. That is one of the issues that we are pursuing in providing support and encouragement, and indeed additional funding, to the fund, as was announced at the G8 summit at Evian.

Tony Worthington: Recently, President Bush announced that $10 billion was to go into AIDS work, which is marvellous news, and I wholeheartedly endorse it. However, he announced that only $1 billion was to go into the multilateral fund and that $9 billion was to go to a handful of countries as long as they accepted conditions such as taking genetically modified food. Will my hon. Friend use his influence to persuade the Americans that multilateral effort is the way ahead? That is why the global health fund was set up and we must back it to the fullest possible extent.

Hilary Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend's point about the importance of the multilateral route. However, it is not entirely clear what precise amounts the Americans will make available for the global fund; that will depend partly on decisions of Congress and partly on the extent to which other countries increase their contributions because of the conditions that have been set. It is really important that we ensure that we support the existing work of the multilateral institutions because we do not want, in promoting the fund, to add to the difficulties that Governments in developing countries face in trying to make sure that they can access the funding and support that is available from all those sources. That is why it is so important that country Governments and the multinational institutions actually work together.

Iraq

Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on the progress with aid to Iraq.

Hilary Benn: The Department for International Development's total financial commitment to humanitarian and reconstruction aid in Iraq now stands at £154 million. Most of that money is being channelled through organisations such as the United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and non-governmental organisations, which have the capacity and expertise to mount operations on the ground. On 3 July, I placed in the Library details of that funding and the work that has been undertaken so far.

Claire Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but does he share my concern that some of the basic forms of aid required by the Iraqi people are constant clean water and electricity supplies? The ability to have access to those will convince the Iraqi people that we are genuine in our desire to see their country improve and to see them take control of their country as quickly as possible. What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that we can get those electricity and water supplies back on, constantly, so that the people of Iraq have a decent life?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to provide the basics, especially water and electricity, to the people of Iraq. Currently, there is no higher priority for the Coalition Provisional Authority than to ensure that that is the case. There are difficulties, however. First, there are historical difficulties, because of the legacy of under-investment in parts of the country, especially the south. Secondly, there are problems of security, with which the House will be familiar. Thirdly, sabotage and looting have undone some of the work that has already been undertaken. However, I can tell the House that, although Baghdad suffered a reduction in electricity supply two or three weeks ago—in part owing to sabotage and in part owing to the creaking infrastructure—the electricity supply is increasing again. None the less, we still have some way to go in order to meet the aspirations to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn our attention.

Sandra Gidley: The Minister will be aware of UN resolution 1325, which seeks to improve the role of women not only in decision making but in aid distribution. What efforts have the UK Government made to ensure that women are working at grass-roots level, so that aid is delivered where it is most needed?

Hilary Benn: One of the UK Government's priorities is to support the process of involving women in all parts of civil society and political life in Iraq. Indeed, the women's conference—which is taking place this week, with help and financial support from DFID—is one of the ways in which we are trying to make that happen. An example of that working is that Baghdad city now has a council in place, and I think I am right in saying that six of its 37 members are women.

Tam Dalyell: Given the problems of security, which my hon. Friend acknowledged in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Claire Ward), what ideas does he have on the help that we can give in terms of aid for the security situation, given that Iraqi trainee policemen were brutally murdered and that any Iraqi policeman who is seen to co-operate may—repeat, "may"—be in physical danger himself?

Hilary Benn: The investment that is being made in security is the highest priority, alongside the restoration of basic services. As hon. Members on both sides of the House will know, the people of Iraq are saying that the first priority is security, because without security we cannot make progress. Some 30,000 police officers have now reported back for work, but my hon. Friend rightly draws attention to the need for retraining, because policing a society that is no longer ruled by terror and fear is a very different challenge from what existed in Iraq for 25 years previously. I am afraid that the fact that those police officers, who had just completed their training, were tragically murdered last week illustrates that some people in Iraq do not want that process to succeed and are trying to undermine the efforts that are being made to restore security—the bedrock on which all future progress will be built.

Caroline Spelman: At the Liaison Committee meeting yesterday, the Prime Minister denied that planning for the aftermath of the war in Iraq was poor, yet that very claim was made on 1 June, by the former Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). Who are we to believe? Does the Minister agree that the former Secretary of State should have the chance to give evidence to support her claim as part of the International Development Committee's inquiry into contingency planning for the war and its aftermath?

Hilary Benn: Who the International Development Committee chooses to call as a witness is entirely a matter for the Committee, not for me. On the substantive issue that the hon. Lady raises concerning preparation, as we discussed last week during the statement on Iraq, unquestionably the preparation that was made focused on the possible worst outcomes, which thankfully did not transpire. Of course there are lessons to be learned from what has happened, but I simply tell the hon. Lady that the priority for the moment is to get on with the job in hand; we can draw on those lessons later.

EU Agricultural Reform

Gordon Marsden: If he will make a statement on the impact of EU agricultural reform on the developing world.

Gareth Thomas: The agreement reached by the Agriculture Council on 26 June will benefit developing countries, as well as European farmers and taxpayers. The most important change is the de-linking of support from output, which should begin to reduce excessive production, the dumping of which harms developing countries. The agreement also paves the way for reforms to other EU commodity regimes and, most importantly, should give new momentum to the current round of World Trade Organisation negotiations, which are vital for the future economic growth and prosperity of developing countries.

Gordon Marsden: I wish to pass on thanks and congratulations to the Government on everything that they have done to achieve that first welcome start in common agricultural policy reform, but does my hon. Friend agree with those trade justice campaigners whom I met recently in Blackpool that reforming the world trade rules is essential to protect developing countries and to prevent dumping—principally, the dumping of agricultural products by American multinational companies? Will he give an assurance that, at the WTO conference in Cancun this September, the Government will put very strong emphasis on reforming the system to benefit developing countries, so that poor banana growers in St. Lucia or cotton growers in Kenya do not find their livelihoods disrupted by unfair trade rules?

Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, the CAP reform process in the Agriculture Council is a first significant and serious reform. It injects some new momentum in the run-up to Cancun at a time when we have missed a series of deadlines. As we in Europe have moved, it is now up to others, particularly our friends in America and in the Cairns group, to give some ground, too.

Andrew Robathan: But can the Minister confirm that the fudged and inadequate reform of the CAP will allow the continued dumping of subsidised agricultural produce on the developing world? Can I refer him to a letter that he sent today to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who did the job that I am currently doing extremely well? It says that
	"you will be aware that this"—
	the peace clause—
	"is due to expire on 31 December . . . Although the European Union is pressing for its renewal as part of a new WTO Agreement on Agriculture, proposals currently on the negotiating table contain no such provision. Failure to extend the Peace Clause would mean that domestic support measures . . . would be open to challenge in the WTO."
	Does that mean that we can look forward to all-out trade war over agricultural produce, particularly subsidised EU produce, after 31 December?

Gareth Thomas: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to international development in his first appearance on the Front Bench in that role. In my limited experience, I suggest that he will find the welcome short. In terms of his specific questions, he is wrong to be so negative about the process that was agreed. The Agriculture Council looked specifically at the direct support that is provided. We can now move on to look at the issue of export subsidies in the context of the WTO negotiations. In terms of the peace clause, we are continuing to negotiate on that issue, and we need to await the outcome of those negotiations.

Piara S Khabra: May I ask the Minister what are the prospects of CAP reform? Only yesterday, the members of the International Development Committee visited Brussels, and I was part of that delegation. We were given the impression by the EU Development and Co-operation Committee that perhaps CAP reform is not a priority, and that the EU common foreign and security policy will take priority over everything else.

Gareth Thomas: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that CAP reform has been a fundamental part of our agenda. The result that we secured at the Agriculture Council, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, allows us to move forward significantly, and the series of measures has been welcomed by the least developed countries. Given the number of deadlines for progress that we have missed, as I mentioned, I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that we now have the opportunity to move forward.

Tony Baldry: Do the CAP reform proposals fully meet Harbinson 2 and the second modalities paper on the reductions of the blue box subsidies? What is the position now with regard to the amber box? Will the EU at the WTO seek to deal with export subsidies to broaden the measure to US export credits and dealing with food aid? What will be done to enhance market access for developing countries?

Gareth Thomas: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work on the International Development Committee. In terms of the Harbinson proposals, the CAP reform that we have negotiated allows us to engage seriously and to meet the Harbinson criteria for the agenda. In terms of the specific points about market access, we are committed to having negotiations in Cancun about market access, and we have made a series of proposals for tariff reduction including an overall average tariff reduction of some 36 per cent. and a minimum reduction of some 15 per cent. We have therefore given significant ground. It is now up to others to give ground on issues of market access, too.

Democracy (Afghanistan/Iraq)

Graham Allen: What improvements in democracy the Department has helped with in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq since 11 September 2001.

Hilary Benn: The United Kingdom supported the emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002 that elected President Karzai. The Department for International Development is providing £500,000 to support the public consultation for the new constitution for Afghanistan. In Iraq, DFID is working closely with other Departments and the leadership of the Coalition Provisional Authority to help to restore a functioning administration in the country and to lay the foundations for the development of representative and democratic Iraqi self-government.

Graham Allen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a moral case for global military intervention to spread democracy, put forward by the neo-Conservatives in the United States, but that unless we actually achieve a development of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, we will reinforce the view of many people that we have adopted a pre-emptive strike attitude to many countries that we do not like? That will in turn lead to an undermining of democracy and make it harder to develop democracy in those countries. Will my hon. Friend redouble his efforts to make sure that democratic structures are brought into being in Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as possible?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because the ultimate test of whether the action that has been taken in those two countries succeeds in the long term will be the extent to which self-government is restored. We should bear in mind the fact that both countries have suffered grievously over the previous 25 years and that restoring democracy is not an easy task. However, what is most important—experience in Iraq over the past couple of months has reinforced this point—is that the people of those countries should see that there is a process that will enable them to move from where they find themselves today to where they want to be. We hope in the next few days to see in Iraq, with the establishment of the governing council that will begin to appoint the first Ministers, the beginning of that process, and that is to be followed by the establishment of the constitutional convention. On Afghanistan, there is a timetable aimed at achieving the first elections in June 2004. It is important that everybody works hard to try to maintain that timetable.

Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that a proper police service is needed in a democracy? In that context, will he pay tribute to those who are volunteering for the police service in Iraq? Furthermore, what steps are being taken to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? How are we communicating with them in the mass?

Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the importance of policing. I join him in paying tribute to those Iraqis and others who have come in to support the reform and training of the new police force in Iraq. He is absolutely right to suggest that that is required if we are to bring about security and to enable all the other things that we want for that country to occur.
	The hon. Gentleman is also right to draw attention to the need to communicate effectively. The Coalition Provisional Authority has further work to do on that front. It is important that the Iraqi people are able to hear and see what is being done so that they can support the process and, therefore, undermine those who are trying to destroy it.

Michael Connarty: To some of us who went to Iraq before the conflict, it was clear that the Kurdish people had already developed a very strong democratic model in their devolved assembly. Is my hon. Friend concerned that they have said that they are not happy with the proposal that they should go into an appointed council and are worried that the advances that they have made in democracy will be eroded in the period in which the council operates before there is a proper constitution and a democratic election?

Hilary Benn: It is, of course, the case that the north of the country has enjoyed a different history in recent times because of the protection that has been provided to that part of Iraq. That prevented Saddam from doing to that part of his country what he had done to the rest of it. It is very important, in the interests of the future of the country as a whole, that everybody pulls together as we work to try to establish a democracy. However, in the end, the precise form of that will have to take account of the different circumstances in different parts of the country and the different traditions to ensure that all the people and all their political representatives then subscribe to the democracy that is created.

Zimbabwe

Chris Grayling: What recent assessment he has made of the level of humanitarian aid reaching the people of Zimbabwe.

Hilary Benn: Most of the maize crop has been harvested in Zimbabwe and many areas of the country now have food. The maize crop is up 61 per cent. on last year but nevertheless remains at less than half the national requirement. The United Nations and non-governmental organisations are still feeding around 2 million people in areas where there has been no crop and those who remain vulnerable, including unemployed farm workers, children, the elderly and the chronically ill. These areas and groups will require food throughout the year. The UN predicts that 5.5 million people in Zimbabwe will require humanitarian assistance again by the end of the year.

Chris Grayling: Earlier this year, I raised with the then Under-Secretary during an Adjournment debate several concerns that had been put to me by aid workers in rural Zimbabwe. Since then, I have received a full response from both the Department and Save the Children, but none the less the concerns that were raised with me remain. Will the Minister, in his new brief, read what was said in that debate and keep a watchful eye on the situation to ensure that no further action needs to be taken in the future?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking. If it would be helpful, I shall be happy to meet him so that we may discuss the issues.

Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the poorest people who live in the poorest countries should never be penalised because of some of the appalling people who lead them?

Hilary Benn: I do agree with my right hon. Friend. The UK has been playing such an important role as the second largest donor of humanitarian support to the people in Zimbabwe precisely because the collapse of the country and its Government, and the destruction that that Government have brought on the people of that country, should not stand in the way of our doing all that we can. It is a sign of the desperate state of affairs that two thirds of this year's humanitarian and food support will be provided by the international community. The Government of Zimbabwe will provide only one third because they are increasingly proving themselves to be incapable of meeting the needs of their people.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a great deal of noise in the Chamber, which is unfair to hon. Members who are asking questions.

Jenny Tonge: Some of us met the mayor of Harare last week for an appraisal of the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. He knew that he would be arrested on his return, and he was. The mayor and NGOs in Zimbabwe report not only that food is being distributed according to party loyalty, but that seeds and tools for next year's crops are not being distributed in areas controlled by the Movement for Democratic Change. Is it not time for us all to stop playing the white colonial card and to persuade the United Nations to send monitors to Zimbabwe to regulate the humanitarian situation and the abuse of human rights that is going on?

Hon. Members: Oh, come on!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.

Hilary Benn: I share the hon. Lady's concern about what has happened to the mayor of Harare. She will be aware that strict procedures are in place to ensure that the humanitarian aid that we and other members of the international community provide is not distributed for political purposes, although I understand her concerns about the way in which the one third that is distributed by the Government of Zimbabwe is used. If there are any complaints or concerns about the way in which our support or the multilateral support is distributed, I would be keen to receive them. I undertake to examine the matter for the hon. Lady.

David Taylor: The humanitarian relief has so far tended to be focused on rural areas. Will the Minister comment on the needs of the urban areas of Harare and Bulawayo in which the poorest people have neither the cash to buy food nor the prospect of crops in leaner times? That has an especially serious effect on many young people.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there is a problem in cities as well as rural areas. Of the 5.5 million people who we estimate will need help with food again by the end of the year, 4.4 million will be in rural areas and 1.1 million will be in cities, which demonstrates that the crisis affects all Zimbabweans.

Caroline Spelman: Frankly, it beggars belief that the Government have now deemed Zimbabwe safe for asylum seekers to return to. The Minister just told the House that almost half the population still need food aid, and there are daily reports of violent oppression. How can the hon. Gentleman seriously expect asylum seekers to follow the Home Office advice to return voluntarily?

Hilary Benn: Well, returning voluntarily is, by definition, a matter of choice for the individuals concerned. They must make that judgment based on their assessment of the situation. I do not think that there is a contradiction in that. Because of the seriousness of the situation in Zimbabwe, we and the international community have taken steps, but in the end, the process of change has to come from within that country, because that is the only way in which a solution to the catastrophe will be found.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Russell Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 9 July.

Tony Blair: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Russell Brown: An excellent new Macmillan cancer centre is soon to open in Dumfries and Galloway Royal infirmary. At the last meeting of the all-party group on cancer, much was said about that kind of investment in cancer care. However, the group did express concern that we need additional cancer nurses or nurses who are better trained in cancer care. Keeping in mind that around 30 per cent. of the population will experience a cancer-related illness in their lifetime, does the Prime Minister feel that we need more training that includes a specific module on cancer care?

Tony Blair: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to the excellent work by Macmillan Cancer Relief. He is right to say that we need to train more cancer nurses. That is why we are making such a huge investment in our national health service at the present time. As a result of that extra investment, people are being diagnosed quicker and treated quicker. More money is being invested. Over the past few years, cancer deaths in this country have fallen by almost 9 per cent. That is why it is important that that extra investment keeps going into our national health service.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee says that the Prime Minister should apologise to Parliament for misrepresenting the status of the second dossier. Will he do that now?

Tony Blair: The Foreign Secretary has already apologised on behalf of the whole Government for the mistake that was made. I do not accept, in any shape or form, that the information in that second briefing was wrong. Actually, those parts of it that were based on intelligence were, indeed, based on intelligence.

Iain Duncan Smith: Let me remind the Prime Minister what the report said. It said that the Prime Minister, in saying that the report was "further intelligence",
	"misrepresented its status and . . . made a bad situation worse."
	The Chairman went on to say that when a Minister misleads Parliament, even inadvertently, he should come to the House of Commons and apologise. Why is it that, for this Prime Minister, sorry seems to be the hardest word?

Tony Blair: On 10 February, we made it quite clear that we acknowledged the mistake that one part of the briefing paper—one part of it—should have been sourced to a written record of a review that was published some time before. That part of it that was expressed to be based on intelligence was, indeed, based on intelligence. So I am afraid that I do not accept that Parliament was misled in any way at all.
	Let me just say this to the right hon. Gentleman. The intelligence on which we based both the September dossier and that February briefing was intelligence that was specifically shared with him by our intelligence services. If he is now disputing any of that intelligence, perhaps he would say so.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister knows I was given no sight of that dossier. I was not even contacted about it. The first I knew about that dossier in February was when I found out about it in the newspapers, so he can retract that for a start. [Interruption.] Oh yes. Until the Prime Minister accepts that he misrepresented the status of the second dossier to Parliament and apologises, trust in him will plummet and no one will believe a word he says anymore.

Tony Blair: First, my understanding is that the right hon. Gentleman was briefed on Iraq by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee on 18 September and again on 12 February. I have said to him that the intelligence that we put forward was shared with him.

Hon. Members: Retract!

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Bacon, it is not for you to shout at the Prime Minister. [Interruption.] Order. I always pick out the one who is loudest.

Tony Blair: I said that the intelligence on which we based both the dossier and the February briefing was shared with the Leader of the Opposition at briefings on 18 September and 12 February. That intelligence was not, as the shadow Foreign Secretary keeps saying, given to the Leader of the Opposition orally by me; it was given by the intelligence services. Perhaps he would just confirm whether that is right or wrong.

Hon Members: Up!

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Khabra.

Piara S Khabra: In light of the recent case of Dame Shirley Porter allegedly owing Westminster council £37 million, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government are able to take any action to ensure that offshore assets can be made more transparent?

Tony Blair: I want to be careful how I answer that because there may be legal proceedings on that subject, but I can simply say that I shall certainly look into the matter and get back to my hon. Friend.

Charles Kennedy: On a previous occasion the Prime Minister replied to me that the nine UK citizens being held at Camp Delta could not remain there indefinitely, but he must recognise equally that he cannot give that reply indefinitely. How long must UK citizens be left to languish in this legal no-man's-land?

Tony Blair: I agree that obviously there has to be a point in time when the issue is brought to an end. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the United States is now talking about the right method by which to try anybody against whom charges would be brought. We will make active representations to the United States—indeed, we are already doing so—to make absolutely sure that any such trial will take place in accordance with proper international law.

Charles Kennedy: Since I last raised the matter with the Prime Minister, those representations to the American authorities have fallen on deaf ears. Two of these British citizens may imminently face very serious charges but, he must surely acknowledge, they are not aware of what those charges are and they will be tried in a military tribunal. If they agree to plead guilty, they may be able to escape the death penalty, but if they do not, and are found guilty, they could face the death penalty. If they are not found guilty, the Americans could still choose to detain them as potential combatants. Just how long will the Prime Minister find that state of affairs acceptable, and what does that say for British influence, which he heralds, over the Americans?

Tony Blair: It is of course important that the commission that tries these people is conducted according to proper rules. Those rules have not yet been drawn up, and it is precisely for that reason that we are making active representations, and our opposition to the death penalty is well known.

Geraint Davies: On that point, my constituent, Feroz Abbasi, has been held in Guantanamo bay for 18 months without charge, and he now faces the prospect of a military tribunal in which he will not be able to appoint his own defence lawyer or to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, and he may face the death penalty following a decision behind closed doors.
	Have the Government applied for the repatriation of my constituent to face a fair trial in Britain, and will my right hon. Friend now press to have all the evidence against Feroz Abbasi supplied to the Government, so that we may press charges and apply for an extradition order under our terrorism legislation? Feroz Abbasi could then face a fair trial and be punished if guilty, and the rule of law and human rights would prevail.

Tony Blair: What my hon. Friend says must be right. If charges are brought, they must be proved in accordance with proper rules of evidence. As he rightly says, the charges are serious. It is worth remembering that the allegations revolve around what happened in Afghanistan some time ago, when British and American troops were putting their lives at risk there. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—there must be no question about this at all. Any commission or tribunal that tries these men must be conducted in accordance with proper canons of law so that a fair trial takes place and is seen to take place.

Michael Fabricant: On another matter, when the Prime Minister talked about delivery targets last Thursday, he said:
	"Maybe we have too many".
	What delivery targets would the Prime Minister scrap, and what target has he set for delivering that?

Tony Blair: Actually, we have reduced to a third the original number of targets in the first comprehensive spending review. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman about the targets that I would not scrap but which, apparently, the Conservatives would—[Interruption.] Oh yes, we will certainly not scrap targets for reducing waiting times and waiting lists for patients. We will not scrap our target for 50,000 extra nurses and we will not scrap our targets for extra investment in schools and hospitals. We will not do so because it is right that that investment is made.

Hugh Bayley: Given that so much crime is fuelled by drug addiction, even in a place like York, which has 250 drug addicts in rehabilitation at any one time, what are the Government doing to expand their range of policies to tackle drug abuse and fund the many agencies involved in delivering that strategy?

Tony Blair: First, we are increasing investment by about half a billion pounds over the next few years. We are also increasing the use of drug treatment and testing orders, and are trying to make sure by increasing the number of people who receive drug treatment for their drug abuse that we reduce the prevalence of the link between drug abuse and crime. My hon. Friend is right—the link between drugs and crime is hugely important, which is precisely why we are making additional investment in both the criminal justice system and drug treatment—[Interruption.]

Iain Duncan Smith: They are cheering him now, but they will be voting against him tomorrow. After last night's massive Labour rebellion on foundation hospitals, can the Prime Minister say whether he intends to press ahead with the legislation on top-up fees?

Tony Blair: We remain absolutely committed to the Government's position on that issue.

Iain Duncan Smith: Well, can the Prime Minister now tell the House whether he intends to rely on the votes of Scottish Labour MPs, even though top-up fees, like foundation hospitals, have been rejected by his own party in Scotland?

Tony Blair: I find it absolutely extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should say that Scottish and Welsh MPs are not able to vote on UK legislation passed in this House—[Interruption.] This is the UK Parliament, and if he is saying that the position of the Conservative party is that Scottish and Welsh MPs can no longer vote on English business, is it also his position that, if devolution is up and running again in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland MPs cannot vote on it?

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister is reduced to getting MPs who will not even be affected by this change to drive through his legislation for England. He is ploughing on, despite the fact that every single Labour MP stood on a manifesto that said that they would not introduce top-up fees. Is that not the reason why he has lost the trust of both the British people and, increasingly, his own party? Nobody believes a word he says any more.

Tony Blair: We now have as official Conservative policy the belief that no one from Scotland, Wales or, indeed, if devolution is up and running, Northern Ireland, can vote on English issues—and they call themselves the Conservative and Unionist party. I think that the right hon. Gentleman needs to think that one through a little more carefully.
	As for university finance, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what would be a disaster—cutting £500 million off the university budget and, according to the higher education institute, having half a million fewer students by 2010. He wants fewer people going to worse-funded universities, which would be a disaster for the country.

Dari Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the greatest concern for all our constituents remains antisocial behaviour, such as when youths congregate at cash dispensers and on street corners deliberately to intimidate? I ask him to reassure the House today that he and his Government will fund totally and fully all the proposals in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. Will he, along with me and my constituents, criticise the Liberal Democrats for opposing the Bill?

Tony Blair: It is, of course, remarkable that the Liberal Democrats are opposing measures on antisocial behaviour, including on-the-spot fines, which I believe will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: these measures on antisocial behaviour are important and we will fund them properly. There are already record numbers of police officers, but they need the powers to deal with these issues. It is to the shame of the Liberal Democrats that they are voting against them.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Given the importance of the Green Paper on child protection and the difficulty that the Prime Minister is having with his diary, will he consider giving up a day of his holiday in Barbados or even 45 minutes to launch the paper?

Tony Blair: We will continue funding nursery education and the sure start proposals and we are continuing to put money into the early years learning of our children. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what we will not do. When millions of people are getting the benefit of these proposals throughout the country, we will not follow his policy of 20 per cent. cuts across the board.

David Winnick: Reverting to earlier questions, is my right hon. Friend aware that, when the exchanges took place on Monday about the two British nationals to be tried by the United States, there was strong criticism from all sides? Should not he be making far stronger representations and tell the Americans that, yes, we are allies in the fight against terrorism and that we intend to remain allies, but we shall also uphold the rule of law? Those two British citizens should be tried here if there are any charges to be made against them. Put your foot down, Prime Minister.

Tony Blair: Certainly, my hon. Friend is right that those people should be tried in accordance with proper international law, and we will ensure that that is true. I simply say to him, however, that the precise nature of this trial has not yet been formulated. Therefore, it is important that we wait and see whether indeed our representations have been heeded.

Andrew Murrison: The Criminal Records Bureau is blaming its disclosure fee and tight targets for its terrible performance. Last week, the fee doubled, the targets were scrapped and the disclosure deadline was kicked into the long grass. Who is responsible for this Horlicks, which is affecting so many of our constituents, and what is the Prime Minister doing about it?

Tony Blair: The actual output of the Criminal Records Bureau has improved significantly over the past few months, but I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that most people accept that we have got to have some system of checks. It has been difficult to establish the Criminal Records Bureau and to get it working in the way that we want, but it is working far better now than in the past few months. I think that a lot of people would be dismayed and that we would be attacked by the Opposition if we were to get rid of the Criminal Records Bureau.

Clive Soley: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the international education tables that were recently published? They showed that Britain is now occupying position No. 8 with regard to the quality of education in our schools. Will he comment on the importance of the extra assistance that goes into classrooms to ensure that schools, and particularly those facing hard challenges, have higher behaviour standards to ensure that we continue to rise in the international league table and to show how much importance that we attach to not undermining schools by criticising them, which happens in some areas of this country?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right, of course, that the additional investment is lifting school standards. We now have the best school results that we have ever had in this country. In particular, the large number of classes of more than 30 pupils has been significantly reduced, indeed practically eliminated. We have also made sure that, in primary schools in particular, but also in secondary schools, that extra investment is yielding the results. I think that we can be proud of much of what is happening in our education system. I know that there have been problems in school funding this year because of additional requirements in relation to pensions and teachers' pay and also the additional investment that is being made, but the worst thing that could happen to our schools now would be to roll back that improvement and investment in future.

Crispin Blunt: Three weeks ago the Prime Minister told me:
	"It is worth pointing out the fact that, when we finally won the conflict in Iraq, some of the people who were still offering resistance were extremists from Chechnya."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 355.]
	Invited to support that fact with evidence in a written answer, the Foreign Office could not do so other than by reference to unsubstantiated reports. We do know, however, that none of the captives in Guantanamo bay is Chechen, although nine are British, and that British forces did not encounter any Chechens in Iraq or in Afghanistan. Should the British Prime Minister be prepared to blacken the name of an entire people on the basis of unsubstantiated reports; and will he withdraw that statement unless and until he has evidence to support it?

Tony Blair: First, in relation to what I said about Iraq, I was referring to the reports to which the hon. Gentleman draws attention. I accept that it may be some time before we can be sure that those reports are correct.
	Secondly, in respect of Afghanistan, there are several reports about Chechen fighters being found in Afghanistan. I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that Chechen extremism is well documented. I agree that, as he has said to me on previous occasions, it is important that the human rights of people in Chechnya are properly respected. However, I think that he would accept, would he not, that elements of fundamentalist extremist groups in Chechnya have carried out appalling terrorist atrocities in respect of people in Russia?

Howard Stoate: As we move from the first flush of youth into early middle age, we bring experience and wisdom to our jobs and like to think that our increasing age adds to what we can contribute to our constituents. When will the Government end the iniquity of age discrimination in our work force once and for all?

Tony Blair: We are planning to take action against age discrimination. My hon. Friend may be a beneficiary of that: who knows?

John Barrett: If the Iraq survey group has still not found weapons of mass destruction by the end of Parliament's summer recess, will the Prime Minister come to this House and make a statement along the same lines as the statement made by the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—a resignation statement?

Tony Blair: As I said to the Liaison Committee yesterday, why do we not allow the Iraq survey group to carry out its work? As I told the Committee, I have no doubt at all that the intelligence that we received was accurate. The view of some people that the whole issue of Saddam and weapons of mass destruction is an invention of the CIA or British intelligence is absurd. The fact is that we know that when the inspectors left at the end of 1998, a huge amount of weaponry was unaccounted for. The proposition of the hon. Gentleman and others like him is simply this: that Saddam—having brought sanctions and military action on himself, and with all the problems that he had—voluntarily, having chucked the inspectors out, got rid of the weapons. I do not believe that thesis, and I am sure that the Iraq survey group will prove it to be wrong.

Cyprus

Tom Cox: What plans he has to visit Cyprus to meet the President of Cyprus.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so.

Tom Cox: I note that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that in recent weeks in northern Cyprus there has been a dramatic change of attitude on the part of the Turkish Cypriot community, who have clearly said that they no longer accept the leadership of Rauf Denktash, no longer want the isolation that they have had for so long, and now want to be part of the European Union that the Republic of Cyprus will enter next year? Against that background, will the Prime Minister, when he next meets the Turkish Prime Minister, make it clear to him that he and his Government should start to enter into constructive dialogue in seeking a settlement in Cyprus for the benefit of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, who clearly now want to associate together?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right in the sense that there is a strong feeling among the Turkish Cypriots that they want to be part of the European Union and to have the benefits of membership. Of course, we will continue our discussions with both the Greek and the Turkish Governments to see how we can bring about a settlement. My hon. Friend may like to know that Kofi Annan recently made it clear that the UN proposals that we strongly supported remain on the table. I therefore very much hope that we are able to mount a constructive attempt to get the parties talking again to ensure that we can reach a settlement on this issue, which would be beneficial for all the people on the island of Cyprus.

David Tredinnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that 30 Members from all parties have presented petitions on behalf of 1 million voters against the European proposals to ban 300 food and vitamin supplements? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a closed question—

Hon. Members: In Cyprus.

David Tredinnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It is too late for the hon. Gentleman to add "In Cyprus."

Engagements

Doug Naysmith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Airbus 380 programme—he saw part of it last week at the Broughton site in north Wales; the manufacturing site is at Filton in my constituency—is vital not only to the future prosperity of the thousands of workers employed at those two sites but to the local economies and the national economy? Will he ensure that every possible assistance is given to the project, which reflects the best of British engineering?

Tony Blair: I was delighted to participate in the opening of the West factory last Friday. As a result of £500,000 in launch aid, Airbus is today in a position where it can take over the leadership of the large aircraft market from Boeing in the United States. That would be tremendous for British manufacturing and for European industry. One of the great benefits is investment in new jobs, which is also an investment in the most highly skilled part of our work force. I welcome my hon. Friend's comments and congratulate the Airbus work force on their work.

Andrew Turner: My constituents on the Isle of Wight pay their taxes like everyone else. However, they are the only ones in England who have to pay a charge every time they access the strategic road network. What will the Government announce in this afternoon's statement to redress that injustice?

Tony Blair: I fear that I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for the announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport for that question to be answered.

Visits (Lancaster and Wyre)

Hilton Dawson: What plans he has to visit the Lancaster and Wyre constituency.

Tony Blair: I have no current plans to do so.

Hilton Dawson: I thank my right hon. Friend for that disappointing response. I commend to him the 175 square miles of the glorious Lancaster and Wyre constituency and assure him of an extremely warm welcome there because the constituency is prospering under the Labour Government. May I recommend that he visits the city of Lancaster after what I imagine will be a successful referendum on an elected assembly for the north-west of England? He could then see for himself Lancaster's historical, cultural, geographical, scientific and technological claims to be the city at the heart of the north-west.

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend's comments are a great encouragement to change my plans and to visit as soon as possible.

Engagements

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Prime Minister will be aware of the importance of broadband technology throughout south Wales and that Maesteg and Pencoed in my constituency are the latest places to be enabled as exchanges. Will he join me in welcoming the initiative by Bridgend county borough council, the Bridgend Information Society project and BT in ensuring that we have access to broadband sooner or later? If he has time, will he join me in my internet surgery tomorrow?

Tony Blair: I do not think that I will be able to join my hon. Friend in that, but his point about the rolling out of broadband is important. We are making huge progress in Britain in this extremely important area for the future, and in particular, as a result of the special measures and types of partnership that he has just been talking about, we are also extending the broadband roll-out in rural areas too. That is extremely important for the future health and prosperity of this country.

Julian Brazier: Following the Prime Minister's earlier answer on the essential work of the Criminal Records Bureau, is he really satisfied that, when the service is so poor, its cost is to be raised by 150 per cent. this afternoon? Will he also tell the House what he has to say to care home owners who were asked to defer their checks so that schools could take priority and are now faced with a huge increase as a result? Are they expected to trust the Government?

Tony Blair: I do not know about the latter point that the hon. Gentleman makes and I am perfectly happy to look into it, but in respect of the first point I would just say that the CRB is now issuing an average of 40,000 disclosures a week, and from having had a backlog of 50,000 cases, fewer than 5,000 are now outstanding. Yes, there is a great deal still to do, but I hope again, as I said to the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) earlier, that he recognises that the CRB is an important innovation that we do need, otherwise people would attack us for not making proper checks on those working in sensitive areas.

Skills Strategy

Charles Clarke: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a statement on the Government's skills strategy.
	We are today publishing a White Paper that sets out the Government's long-term strategy for improving and sustaining the development of skills in this country. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House. I believe that there is a consensus in the House, and more widely, on the need for this country to raise its skills levels. We must do that in order to become more competitive, to raise living standards, to increase productivity and to offer better opportunities for all.
	It is widely recognised that, if we are to achieve the economic success that we all want, our most pressing educational challenge is to raise skills at all levels. It is in that area, rather than primary, secondary or higher education, that this country lags behind our international competitors. For example, the proportion of our work force qualified to the crucial intermediate level of technical and craft skills is low at 28 per cent., compared with 51 per cent. in France and 65 per cent. in Germany.
	That is despite the fact that we have made progress in recent years. For example, the number of vocational A-levels and vocational GCSEs awarded has risen by over 40,000 in one year to reach 128,000 in 2002; the number of young people on modern apprenticeships has risen to over 234,000 in 2002; and 75 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds now stay on in education or training, the highest level since 1996.
	Despite those advances, there remain major shortfalls—work force skills are lower in Britain than in many other countries; there are persistent skills deficits in such important areas as technical and craft skills, maths, and management and leadership; too many adults lack the skills and qualifications needed for sustainable employability; and too many young people are leaving education without the skills that employers need.
	Those shortfalls are serious and the White Paper addresses them. We have consulted widely. The overwhelming view, which I heartily share, is that the need now is not for piecemeal initiatives or clever tactical gimmicks; it is to make much better use of what is already there and to put in place a strategic approach. We need a coherent, long-term, national strategy that provides easy access to high quality training, across the full range of skills from basic to advanced. It must be based upon a framework that offers flexibility, relevance and choice, and it must deliver the skills that are needed by both employees and employers, both jobseekers and the retired.
	The main elements of that framework can be easily set out. First, at national level, a network of 23 sector skills councils will be fully in place by next summer covering the major sectors of the economy. The councils are a major new voice for employers and employees in their sector. They are charged with identifying the sector's present and future skill needs, ensuring that qualifications and training meet those needs, and getting employers to act together to invest in skills to raise productivity. They place employers and the workplace centre stage.
	Secondly, at regional level, a powerful new partnership between regional development agencies and the learning and skills councils will link regional economic development goals with the skills to achieve them, focused on the needs of learners and employers. This will tie in business support services, so that businesses can get better access to the advice and help that they want. Thirdly, at local level training programmes—whether delivered in colleges or in the workplace—will be sharply focused on meeting those skills priorities in a truly demand-led, and therefore responsive, system.
	This simple framework will help people to gain skills at all levels. It will create a regime in which education and training services genuinely have to respond to the demands of potential students—often employees—and employers. It will mean the expansion of modern apprenticeships to help more young people move from school into high quality, work-based training. We will lift the current age cap, so that adults will also be able to benefit. It will mean new opportunities for the millions of adults who do not currently possess a good foundation of skills for employability, enabling them to get their first level 2 qualification. It will mean that the skills for life campaign, through which adults gain basic literacy and numeracy skills, will be extended to include information and communications technology. It will mean more training to fill skills gaps at the higher technician and craft level—the so-called level 3—to meet regional or sectoral priorities. It will also mean that our new foundation degrees will be developed and expanded to meet the ever-growing demand from employers for advanced vocational skills.
	To build this ladder of opportunity, we will introduce major reforms. We will develop a framework of qualifications for adults, based on units and credits that give learners and employers more flexibility to put together the package of training that they want. In addition, we will guarantee protection for leisure learning, particularly for pensioners and people on low incomes. We will ensure greater employer involvement in the design and delivery of modern apprenticeships, and provide better and clearer information for employers and potential students about the existing opportunities and available support, including an employer's guide to good training. We will expand the network of union learning representatives, which is focused on encouraging the low skilled to engage in training. We will give a new guarantee of free tuition for any adult without a good foundation of skills for employability, in order to provide the training that they need to gain a first level 2 qualification. We will introduce a new adult learning grant to support full-time adult learners in those priority groups, to meet the cost of learning. And we will use our employer training pilots to inform and guide our future national employers' training programme.
	Better skills are needed for Britain to flourish. They are key to our economic success in an increasingly competitive world, and they are critical to our future in the European Union. The economic reform agenda agreed in Lisbon in 2000 reflects the importance of skills across Europe. Many of the topics addressed in the White Paper reflect the concerns shared by our European partners, and they reflect our determination to tackle the challenges of skills and mobility across the EU.
	My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House on 9 June, in his statement on economic and monetary union, that
	"labour market flexibility and structural economic reform"
	is
	"at the heart of the new . . . policy guidelines for Europe",
	that Britain must
	"have the necessary flexibility to sustain growth and employment",
	and that
	"we are making structural reforms that will bring increased flexibility to our economy."—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 407–13.]
	Such flexibility was the core of the Chancellor's second test for membership of economic and monetary union.
	The Government believe that the White Paper that I am publishing today is a major contribution to this increased flexibility, which is necessary to ensure that the British economy can respond quickly and efficiently to changes in economic conditions inside the single currency area, should the UK decide to join the economic and monetary union. Our proposals will help to ensure that the supply of skills in the labour market matches properly the skills that employers demand, and they will put in place mechanisms to eliminate mismatches in the demand and supply of different skills.
	The changes that I have set out today represent the most ambitious agenda yet seen to tackle some deep-seated and long-standing weaknesses in our national skills base. They have been developed through a strong partnership between my Department and my colleagues in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government will lead by example by ensuring that each Department properly addresses its own skills needs and gaps in the way that I have described.
	Even more importantly, the strategy represents not simply a Government initiative, but a commitment from all the main social partners—the Government, the CBI, the TUC and the Small Business Council. All will be represented in the skills alliance, which we are establishing to carry through the implementation of the proposals, in a sustained and determined campaign finally to tackle the skills weaknesses that have dogged us for so long. I commend the statement to the House.

Damian Green: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of the White Paper—and, indeed, for the usual steady stream of leaks and media appearances that allow us all to know what is in it long before the House can debate it.
	The fact that this country's education system is relatively bad at developing non-academic skills is depressing, and it has been true for more than half a century. We never properly implemented the Butler Education Act 1944: we never built enough of the technical schools that Butler wanted; and generations have paid, and are still paying, the price. I fully recognise the sheer scale of the task facing the Government, but the question today is whether the White Paper even begins to meet that challenge. Sadly, it fails on several counts.
	There are two main underlying failures. The first is that the policies in the White Paper are nothing like ambitious enough to deal with the problem—not in respect of the money spent, but in terms of recognition of the need for serious radical reform in this area of policy. The second is that the solution for which the Government have reached is predictably centralised, complicated and bureaucratic. Reflecting on the plethora of national, regional, local and cross-cutting structures that the Government are setting up, it is clear that everyone will spend more time liaising than training. By the time all the committee meetings are finished, there will not be enough energy left to produce the computer engineers, builders and plumbers that we need. I hope that the colleges that will deliver much of the training can cope, especially when page 96 of the document shows that they will be under ever-closer Government control.
	Let me first address the document's poverty of vision. The £30 grant for an adult on a full-time course might help at the margin, and might encourage some people to go on a course. However, for Ministers to pretend that tens of thousands of people will find their chances in life transformed is a fantasy. How many more people does the Secretary of State believe will go into full-time education or training as a result of this measure?
	Whatever happened to the replacement for individual learning accounts? As recently as 15 April this year, the Secretary of State told Computer Weekly that the creation of "ILA part two", as he put it, was "a high priority". He was right. I realise that ILAs were an expensive embarrassment for the Department, and that the Secretary of State has said that it could not afford to make the same mistake again, but giving up altogether on the idea of giving people some control over their own training needs is a hopeless retreat. Can he tell us when he decided to drop that commitment and why?
	Most important of all in respect of what should be in the document but is not, is why there is so little about what will happen in schools to promote skills. Giving people a helping hand if they have fallen through the net is admirable and necessary, but it would help them even more if the net were designed in such a way that they did not fall through it in the first place. It is bizarre that the Government have produced a document on a skills strategy while waiting for a report on the school exam system, which will presumably give them some guidance about vocational qualifications and how we should be teaching skills in schools. Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the key advantages of the system used in most other European countries is the early availability of technical and vocational education, and can he tell the House why this document fails to address it?
	Carolyn Hayman, the chief executive of the Foyer Federation—an admirable body—said this morning:
	"In practice, those who fail to gain qualifications while at school are unlikely to fulfil their potential later in life."
	She is right, which is why a skills strategy that concentrates only on adults will not work.
	There is also the problem that every solution in the document smacks of central planning and regionalisation. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the charmingly named "Unique Learner Number" on page 66 is, in fact, an identity card, and can he tell the House what level of compulsion he plans for the use of that card? How fast does he expect the regional skills alliances to be formed? Given his Department's record on the sector skills councils—three years on from the grand announcement that they would transform training, it appears that only two have been fully licensed—how will he ensure that such delays do not happen again? How does he propose to ensure that employers have the real say in what they require from training and trainees. Bodies that report to the Secretary of State seem to dominate the bodies that he will set up, even though industry spends £23 billion annually on training, or three times the budget of the Learning and Skills Council.
	The country needs a well-trained and well-educated work force, so that we can offer a fair deal to everyone. Sadly, today we have learned that the Government have decided just to fiddle with the edges of the skills problem. We have had lots of warm words and some minor improvements, but no sense of the urgency of the problem or the depth of the changes needed. The country needed radical reform: instead, this is a timid, half-hearted disappointment that does not measure up to the importance of the task.

Charles Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in every single one of his allegations. He suggested that our solution is centralised and bureaucratic, with committees and so on. In fact, the reverse is true. Through co-operation with my colleagues in the Government, we will create—for the first time—a system that will achieve an immediate one-stop shop for everybody concerned, to do what needs to be done. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that employers, and everybody else, have had to deal with a complicated and difficult system, but we will replace it with one that will work well.
	The hon. Gentleman accuses us of a lack of ambition, but I do not accept that. Ambition is not about words, but about doing. The hon. Gentleman ridiculed the sector skills councils, but the two that already exist are making rapid and major progress and the others, which are being created according to the timetable set out in the White Paper, are making progress faster than they otherwise would have done. If the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to talk to employers—for example, Digby Jones at the CBI—about the issue, which I commend him to do, he would see that employers positively want to engage in the process. That is because we have put them centre stage, as we needed to do.
	The hon. Gentleman is also wrong about the replacements for the ILAs. We have put together three specific replacements. The first is the entitlement to free learning up to level 2 for those who have not achieved it. The second is the inclusion of information and communication technology in the skills strategy, and the third is the ability to provide courses up to level 3 in those sectors and regions where that is necessary. That is a comprehensive programme that will put in place real opportunities for people to learn.
	I accept, up to a point, the hon. Gentleman's remarks about schools for the 14–19 age group, but he will—or at least he should—have studied the detailed document on 14–19 provision that we produced earlier this year specifically to address the issues he raises. He is right to say that we must develop a much stronger relationship between work and school for pupils from the age of 14. Mike Tomlinson's inquiry will address that specific point, and several measures to deal with it are also alluded to in the White Paper.
	The response from employers has been positive, because we are putting them centre stage so that we have education and training that meets their needs. That is as it should be. The issue for colleges is whether they can ensure—it will be tough for them—that the courses they put on meet the needs of employers in their locality. That is the challenge that we are setting, and our approach to it is far more radical than anything else that has been done in recent times to address those historic problems.

Phil Willis: I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement and of the White Paper. I also thank the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, who has been running the process, for the way in which we have been kept in touch during its lengthy development. We congratulate the Government on their attempt to do what no other Government have done in my working lifetime, and that is to deal with the chronic skills shortage in the work force. That is not a modern phenomenon, because the problem has existed since the post-war years.
	We also wish to support the Secretary of State in his desire to have a demand-led strategy, but that demand should come not only from employers, but from individuals and, indeed, the state—because it also has demands that need to be met. We recognise the need for an inclusive approach. We welcome the fact that four Departments will work together, but which will take the lead? As we know from the problems with schools funding, the lack of a lead Department can cause an awful mess.
	We give a cautious welcome to the skills alliance. The Secretary of State would probably agree that it has all the hallmarks of a highly corporatist structure, and as such is a throwback to the 1970s and the Manpower Services Commission. We must avoid that corporatism at all costs. I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an insight into how such a massive organisation can ever hope to be responsive to individuals and individual employers. The saving grace is the late inclusion of the Higher Education Funding Council. My party accepts that the skills strategy will remain incomplete unless the universities are involved and delivering high-level skills.
	Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the proposal is not a back-door attempt to force some universities to become teaching-only institutions, designed to deliver level 4 skills? Will he assure the House that the foundation degree—which we support—will serve both as an end qualification and as a staging post to honours and postgraduate qualifications?
	We welcome the universal entitlement to training at level 2, paid for by the state, but what has happened to the universal entitlement for 19 to 30-year-olds studying at level 3? That was openly promised before. If there is to be a regional lottery for support for students at level 3, who will make the decisions—the planners, the employers, or students themselves?
	How will individual learners or employers make sense of the tangled web of quangos that will exist at regional level? They will include sector skills councils, RDAs, local learning and skills councils, Jobcentre Plus and business link, not to mention the emerging regional assemblies. Those assemblies will probably appear in the north-west, Yorkshire and Humber and the north-east. Which of those organisations will take the lead?
	We welcome the adult learner grant as another positive step. Will the Secretary of State explain why a full-time level 4 student studying from home needs £3,000 by way of support, whereas a level 3 student is expected to manage on £1,500? That is an important question.
	Will the Secretary of State look again at the support for modern apprenticeships? We welcome the fact that the bar has been raised from 25 to 28. That is positive, but why has it not been lifted altogether? If adults are to work until they are 70, is not there a need for an adult modern apprenticeship, to encourage people in their 30s and 40s to go down that route?
	We have long championed credit accumulation as the way to approach qualifications in education and skills. We warmly welcome the unit-based system. We accept the need to learn the lessons from individual learning accounts, but when does the Secretary of State expect such a system to be in operation? Will he give further education colleges immediate authorisation to deliver bite-sized units to employers? Will he enable them to draw down the necessary resources from the learning and skills councils? That is what colleges need to do, and what employers want.
	Will the Secretary of State explain whether colleges are now to have what are, in effect, top-up fees? Unless they collect the resources from employers for the skills training that they deliver, they will not be able to meet their income targets and will therefore go under.
	We warmly welcome what the Secretary of State has produced today. We are prepared to be supportive, but I suspect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is writing the manifesto as we speak, will deliver the big ideas for the next general election.

Charles Clarke: I appreciate that fairly strong support—albeit expressed in a lukewarm way—from the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have worked closely on these proposals, and our work has been both strong and positive.
	I shall deal first with the points about the need for the provisions to be demand led. As the hon. Gentleman said, the key must lie with employers and individuals, and to a lesser extent with the state. One of the shocking things about our skills shortages is that we do not understand enough about where they exist. What types of skills are needed, at what levels, in each sector? The level of confidence that ought to exist between employers in certain sectors and the education and training system is missing, which means that we are not getting good answers to those questions. The development of sector skills councils will allow us to address the problem in a very sharp way. The state will not decide what skills are needed: employers and the individuals involved will do that.
	The hon. Gentleman described the proposals as corporatism, but that is not so. The lead clearly lies with my Department, but we will work with all the other partners. For the first time, we are bringing the deliverers together, as in the case of the Higher Education Funding Council, but we also want to continue to work with the social partners, as already happens.
	I can confirm that the foundation degree, to which we give great priority, will be both an end in itself and part of a flexible system that will allow people to move on to other areas. We want the foundation degree to be regarded as an end in itself. One of the excellent things to happen in the discussions that preceded the White Paper was that many employers' organisations in both the public and private sectors regard the foundation degree as a very positive development. I am optimistic that we will be able to make good progress in this area.
	The hon. Gentleman made an important point about level 3. The philosophy underlying the White Paper is that we believe that employers should make a far bigger cash commitment to training than is the case at present. We identify various ways in which that can be encouraged and moved forward. We say, therefore, that the state must put in resources when employers fail to do so—where there has been what might be called a market failure. We identify skills up to levels 2 and 3—at all ages—in which there has been clear failure in a particular sector or region. That reflects our priorities in targeting economic resources.
	The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that there will be a tangled web of quangos, although that used to be the case in the past. What we propose will untangle major parts of the web, in particular by giving the RDAs the lead role when it comes to sorting out the mess that has often existed in every region.
	We are talking about lifting the cap on modern apprenticeships. The question from the hon. Gentleman on that matter may have resulted from a failure of understanding. If I misunderstood his remarks on that, I shall speak to him outside the Chamber.
	Finally, on the bite-sized credit approach to education, we strongly agree with that approach, but it is critical that any curriculums or bitesized credits that are available have value in the employment market. They must be of value to employers. We do not want colleges to develop products that they then try to sell to employers. We want there to be proper dialogue that allows employers to say what sort of education and skills their people need. The White Paper is all about working to make that happen.

Barry Sheerman: Anyone who cares about this country's skills base in this new century will welcome the White Paper enthusiastically and warmly. That it has taken the Government six years to get around to it shows that there is a hint of criticism even among Labour Members. However, we have finally got it.
	My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Education and Skills has trawled through the higher education White Paper, and its positive response will be published tomorrow. The same thing will happen with today's White Paper.
	I welcome the fact that the proposals cover all Departments. For too long, there has been no recognition that a massive amount of training goes on in the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, and in the health sector and elsewhere—in fact, in many more than the big four Departments. However, there will be difficulties as a lot of corporatist, quango-type organisations are involved. I hope that my right hon. Friend is right that the web will be unravelled by making the RDAs the lead authorities, but I hope that he will remember that the people who deliver skills are the crucial ones. They are the people on the ground—teachers, lecturers, non-governmental organisations, charities and bodies in the public sector. It is very important the he gets that balance right, but the Select Committee is looking forward to examining the White Paper very closely, and we hope that we can improve it.

Charles Clarke: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's remarks. As always, I shall be delighted to debate the White Paper with the Select Committee, which always addresses these matters in a constructive way.
	I shall deal first with some of the specific matters raised by my hon. Friend. I believe that the White Paper will go a long way towards untangling the existing web of institutions. However, if the Select Committee can find ways to untangle the web even more, I shall be delighted to talk about how we can take that forward.
	Secondly, it is important to say that none of this will happen without the commitment of a wide range of organisations, as well as public sector employers and private sector employers. The proposals are not just about the private sector; they are not just about what goes in private businesses; they are about what goes in employment right across the piece, whether in great public services such as education and health, in prisons or wherever it may happen to be. I very much welcome that. However, what we need from each employer is commitment; more than anything else, we must generate that. The greatest danger to the success of the document would be for everyone to say, "That is very interesting but we're not really going to do much about it". We need to encourage real engagement, not only across government but across our whole society.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome a lot of what the Secretary of State said, not least because businesses have been crying out for a long time for a framework that really is demand-led. Is he aware of the excellent work being done by the Construction Industry Training Board at the national construction college in west Norfolk? Is he also aware of the groundbreaking student apprenticeship programme that is being launched at West Anglia college, of which the principal, Peter Stewart, and John Brierly, of the Norfolk learning and skills council, are rightly proud?
	The Secretary of State talked a lot about greater employer involvement in the design and delivery of schemes. How will that actually be achieved on the ground? How will employers and small businesses actually feed in their requirements? Is not there danger of a confused chain of command between national, regional and local bodies?

Charles Clarke: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is to be another statement and that when we get to the main debate there will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches. I expect only one supplementary question, therefore, and I hope that hon. Members will bear that in mind.

Charles Clarke: I shall try to be brief, Mr. Speaker.
	I am aware of the points raised by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham); indeed, I held discussions with the CITB recently. The key thing is the relationship between the college and the employer locally, and ensuring that dialogue takes place. I know that is happening in Norfolk and I believe that it will also happen throughout the country.

Colin Burgon: I especially welcome the expansion of the modern apprenticeship scheme. We are all aware that skilled joiners, plumbers, plasterers and electricians are in short supply. Our big problem is how to challenge society's perceptions whereby such people are placed low on the social ladder. How can we raise society's perceptions and give value and credit to those skills?

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's point hits the bull's-eye. The core of the document is that vocational and technical education is important and critical. If there is one factor that explains how badly the figures that I read out compare with those for other countries, it is that in other countries, especially European countries, vocational and technical education are valued, while, for a variety of reasons, that has not happened in this country. I hope that the document will help to achieve that.

Nick Gibb: Is not the real skills problem in this country due to the fact that 23 per cent. of adults cannot read properly, compared, for example, with 7 per cent. in Sweden? We have one of the worst adult literacy rates in the developed world. Is not the reason for that the fact that there is too little use of synthetic phonics in the teaching of reading in our primary schools? Should not that be the focus of the Secretary of State's attention in the coming period?

Charles Clarke: It is true that up to 7 million adults in this country do not have level 2 skills, but if I were a Conservative I would draw a veil over the education system during the years when that party was in charge of it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we have to focus on improving primary education in the way that we are doing, as we debate in the Select Committee and elsewhere.

Clive Efford: I welcome the statement. I stress to my right hon. Friend that we need flexibility, especially in the funding streams, to allow community colleges and FE colleges not only to meet the needs of businesses but to enter partnerships, such as the one that he will see tomorrow when he visits my constituency. That partnership between a local primary school and the FE college has increased the skills base among adults on an estate, which is improving their quality of life and their ability to help their children through their education. Such flexibility will make the strategy work.

Charles Clarke: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The document is about flexibility and about making skills and education available for everybody. My hon. Friend was formerly a taxi driver, which has tempted me to point out that taxi drivers sometimes show a combination of skills and general erudition that we might try to spread throughout the whole country.

Roy Beggs: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the statement. I agree that we need a coherent, long-term national strategy. Can the Secretary of State assure me that those in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Ministers will be fully briefed on these matters, and that the opportunities will be available to our young people in Northern Ireland, too? Does he agree that all employers—whether big or small—have a responsibility to share the burden and to deliver, and that the attitude of the past, where small companies poached from larger ones, will not do for the future?

Charles Clarke: I agree 100 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman in his final point about the role of employers. Indeed, that is why employers are central to our strategy. Not only will we consult with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office, we have done so throughout the preparation of the document and I hope that it will be as useful in Northern Ireland as I believe that it will be in the rest of the country.

Judy Mallaber: In developing this welcome strategy, will my right hon. Friend ensure that attention is paid to how we can tackle the occupational segregation between men and women? Last week, the Equal Opportunities Commission launched an inquiry into modern apprenticeships to find out what can be done to break down some of the barriers, which are one reason why there is still a 19 per cent. pay gap between men and women.

Charles Clarke: I can confirm that we shall do precisely what my hon. Friend suggested. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in her capacity as Minister for Women, has made a number of specific interventions in the document, precisely to meet the point that my hon. Friend made. My right hon. Friend will chair jointly with me the skills alliance nationally. I am confident that the preoccupations on which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) campaigns, and which I, too, share, will be met throughout the implementation of the strategy.

John Pugh: I hesitate to ask this, but has the Secretary of State set a quantifiable target for the expansion of modern apprenticeships? After all, we are living in a world where it is easier to find someone to write a skills strategy than to get a plumber.

Charles Clarke: The target that we set for modern apprenticeships was 28 per cent. by 2004. However, in the spirit of the exchanges at Prime Minister's questions, we are looking carefully at what would be the best targets to motivate success in that sphere.

Tony Lloyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend a further question about poaching? In some industries, such as print, construction and engineering, poaching has always been a major phenomenon; in effect, the good employers subsidise the bad. Although I respect much of what my right hon. Friend is trying to achieve through the White Paper, if we continue to find what he described as market failure, will he make it clear that the Government will keep compulsion in reserve?

Charles Clarke: I can confirm that. We have held substantial conversations with colleagues in the trade union movement, including the general secretary of the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, whose concerns about the printing industry are close to my hon. Friend's heart. We have to acknowledge that there are substantial differences of position across the whole range of sectors of industry. We recognise the achievements in the engineering and construction industries, which is why they are where they are now. In answer to my hon. Friend's specific question, I confirm that we shall keep open what it is necessary to do in other sectors if employers are not prepared to work in the way that we have set out, although I am confident that they will want to work in that way.

David Rendel: I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), that, in future, demand from employers would drive skills provision in our further education colleges and other places. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that some of our more traditional industries are beginning to withdraw some of their employment, no doubt due to international competition, and that the greatest demand for new skills and the greatest number of jobs are actually in the creative industries? Can he assure us that he will not refer to such skills as Mickey Mouse skills, and that he will ensure that they are provided?

Charles Clarke: That concept is at the core of what we are about. Each sector, including the creative industries, has to establish which skills it currently needs and which skills it will need in 10, 20 or 30 years if it is to be internationally competitive. We need to determine the current state of skills in each sector and the action that needs to be taken, in terms of qualifications, provision of courses and so on, to close the gap. That will differ sector by sector; the situation will be different for each sector. The problem is that not enough attention was paid to the way that skills and innovation work together—perhaps I should have emphasised more strongly that we want to work with colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry on how to do that. There has not been enough looking to the future, so—out of a blue sky—some global competition has wiped out thousands of jobs in this country in a wholly destructive way. The White Paper is about preparing our population for the future challenges in each sector.

Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that there have been some dramatic changes in the pattern of work in parts of Britain—the coalfields? We got some money for Shirebrook and the Markham employment zone, and all the rest. There is a potential for 8,000 jobs, and most of those people will need retraining. We have got loads of further education colleges on the doorstep. Will the White Paper ensure that the two things are married together, so that those great projects at Shirebrook and Bolsover can go ahead successfully?

Charles Clarke: I hope that the White Paper will do precisely that. What my hon. Friend indicates, quite correctly, is that there has been a series of different approaches—the initiatives that he describes, the employment zones and so on—all of which are all worth while on their own account, but we have to bring them together in a focused and targeted way to address the skills and training needs of the population, which he and other hon. Members represent. We need more joined-up work on that, which is what the White Paper is all about, so I hope that I can give the assurance that he seeks.

Louise Ellman: My right hon. Friend's statement will be very much welcomed in the north-west, where the acquisition of skills is essential for economic prosperity. Will he indicate how individuals, who may be in or out of employment, can gain access to the opportunities offered, so that we can make a reality of our statement that we regard the acquisition of skills as being as important as the acquisition of academic qualifications?

Charles Clarke: There are essentially three points where that relationship becomes particularly acute: first, in the place of work—the employment—which is why we have union learning funds and so on, because people in work need to know where to go to develop their skills; secondly, with Jobcentre Plus, which is why the partnership with my colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions is so important; and thirdly, in schools and colleges, where that contact is particularly important. Those areas will deliver precisely what my hon. Friend is looking for, in providing real choices to enable people to improve themselves.

David Chaytor: I very much welcome the White Paper, which is the most important statement on skills for the past 50 years. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's consultative approach to developing his proposals, especially the commitment to the level 2 entitlement, the role of the trade union learning representatives, the importance of learning for pensioners and the development of the national training programme.
	Given that the current employer training pilot schemes are due to finish in the autumn of 2004, will the evaluation be completed in time for the national training programme to continue seamlessly at the beginning of 2005? Does he agree that it would be extremely unfortunate if there were a gap between ending the pilot schemes and developing the national scheme?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I appreciate his remarks. What is particularly important is that, as we move to the national model, we learn from the evaluation of the employer training pilot schemes. The initial perceptions of people who have seen and understood those schemes are that they have been very successful, and it is a question of taking the lessons of good practice that have been established there. The director general of the CBI told me just the other day that he had visited three schemes and seen real liberation, a thirst for learning and employers changing their views, and we need to learn from that in the new system that we establish.

Khalid Mahmood: I should also like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the ongoing advancement in skills strategy, particularly in light of the fact that we brought together the Further Education Funding Council and the training and enterprise councils and cut bureaucracy, as has been mentioned, but will he assure me that, as well as employers, the local FE colleges will be involved in the consultation, so that they can have an input into the strategy?

Charles Clarke: I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. The colleges are obviously at the centre of our approach, which we are discussing with individual colleges and the Association of Colleges, but there is a big issue, which I need to be quite frank about: it is necessary that many FE colleges take to heart the message of the White Paper, which is that our approach is employer-led in developing training courses that meet the needs of local employment. Many in the FE sector are absolutely up for that in a very positive and exciting way—this is a big reform agenda, to be frank—but they will be fully involved.

David Kidney: Some national skill shortages are well known—several hon. Members have mentioned plumbing, for example—but other shortages are localised. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, in collecting information about skill shortages and in taking decisions about how to meet them, some sensitivity will be given to local needs?

Charles Clarke: For precisely that reason, the local learning and skills councils and the regional development agencies will together particularly address local issues, but I have one caution: it is very important that skills assessments in any locality—whether in Staffordshire or Norfolk—take account of national trends in all the sectors. If account is not taken of the national and international market place, it will lead to significant difficulties. That is what we are trying to avoid.

Transport Investment

Alistair Darling: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the next stage in implementing our transport investment programme. I also want to set out how we are planning ahead to meet the pressures that we know we will face on our roads in 20 to 30 years' time.
	The pressures now on road and rail are well known. We are dealing with the consequences of decades of under-investment, coupled with the pressures of rising prosperity. We are one of the largest economies in the world. People are better off, and they are travelling more. Our future prosperity depends on us helping people and goods to move around as efficiently as possible, but we must do so in a way that is consistent with our environmental and social objectives.
	The Government are committed to sustained, high levels of investment in transport, with £180 billion of public and private investment over 10 years—a 45 per cent. increase in real terms, compared with the previous decade. Last December, I announced major investment in roads, light rail and local transport in the light of recommendations from studies of five strategic routes. Today, I am announcing the next stage: my decisions in relation to a further 11 studies, covering the south coast, west midlands, Tyneside, south and west Yorkshire, Hull, the Thames valley, the M25, the M60 around Manchester, and the corridors between London to Ipswich, Norwich to Peterborough and London to the south midlands.
	Full details of all my decisions will be available in the Vote Office, but I want now to set out the approach we are taking. First, we are making better use of existing infrastructure, by improving its management and dealing with bottlenecks. Secondly, we are improving public transport, so that it provides a better choice. Thirdly, we are investing in new capacity where it is needed to tackle congestion and improve safety. Fourthly, we are planning ahead for the pressures that we know that we will face in 20 to 30 years' time. I will deal with each of those in turn.
	The first stage must be to make better use of the road capacity that we have already. That is why we are giving the Highways Agency new powers to manage traffic, and why the agency will establish a regional control centre in the west midlands next year to monitor trunk roads and provide up-to-date, reliable information to motorists.
	Not all roads are congested all the time, but sections of many roads are under pressure during at least part of the day. That is why, from next year, on the M42 at peak hours, we will see controlled use by cars of the hard shoulder, operating under stringent safety conditions. That, combined with variable speed limits and other measures, will ease congestion and help keep traffic flowing. Today, I have asked the agency to assess the results of that pilot scheme before I consider the case for widening the M42.
	Following study recommendations, I shall ask the agency to examine improved traffic management to tackle congestion on other routes, including in the Thames valley, parts of the M60 in Manchester and sections of the M1, M62 and M18 in south and west Yorkshire, including the possibility of hard shoulder running at peak hours there as well. We shall be consulting motoring organisations and others to make sure that we get the detail right.
	We also need to continue with road improvements to tackle bottlenecks to improve safety and reliability. So I shall ask the Highways Agency to work up proposals to tackle bottlenecks, including improvements to a number of junctions on A19 in Tyneside; improvements to junctions and limited widening on the M27 around Southampton; and improvements at the Brook Street interchange between the M25 and A12.
	The second element of our strategy is to invest in improvements to rail and other public transport to provide a better choice for travellers. Work is already under way to improve the main rail arteries—for example, the £9 billion upgrade of the west coast main line, plans to enhance the capacity of the east coast main line, a strategy to make better use of capacity for the midland main line, as well as a £1 billion investment in a new power supply south of the Thames and the biggest replacement programme for rolling stock ever seen in this country.
	Against that background, those studies made a number of further recommendations. Some of their objectives are already being taken forward by the Strategic Rail Authority, including a new hourly service between Ashford and Brighton, to be introduced with the new franchise in 2005, and a proposed hourly service from London to Leeds through Nottingham. The SRA is examining the business case for reopening the east-west rail link between Bedford and Oxford. In Kent, the SRA is also examining how to integrate new and existing domestic services to make better use of the channel tunnel rail link.
	The Thames study also recommended better public transport links between the Thames valley and Heathrow. The SRA and the BAA are developing a new service to Heathrow, which it aims to start late next year, enabling more people to travel to the airport by public transport, from both the Thames valley and west London. Over 10 years, we will invest £33 billion of direct public expenditure in rail. By 2005, we will be spending double what we did in 2001. I am asking the SRA to look at how it can meet other study objectives through its work to make better use of the network and the refranchising process.
	Most journeys, however, are local trips of fewer than five miles. Within our 10-year investment programme, therefore, we have already included £19 billion worth of capital spending to improve local transport across the country, and last December I announced substantial investment in local public transport. Today, the west midlands study specifically looked at local transport in the largest conurbation outside London. It recommended major improvements, including extensions to the light rail system and substantial investment in better bus routes. In the light of that, I have decided to make up to a £1 billion available for further improvements to local transport in the west midlands over the next seven years, dependent on the passenger transport authority bringing forward realistic plans.
	By next year, we will be giving local authorities three times more money for local transport as they had in 1997. Today, I am asking authorities to work up proposals for a range of improvements recommended in the studies. I also support recommendations for local authorities and bus operators to develop an extended network of bus and coach services to make that a more attractive option.
	We are therefore making better use of existing capacity and investing in improvements to public transport. Even after doing that, however, pressures will still be on the road network. On any view, existing capacity is not enough to cope with today's demands let alone the pressures that we will face. As the 10-year plan made clear, we need to widen and improve trunk roads to tackle congestion and improve safety and make journeys more reliable. That brings me to the third element of our approach.
	Today, I am endorsing recommendations for improvements to some trunk roads of regional importance: for example, widening to three lanes the A12 from Colchester to the M25; widening the M11 to three lanes between junctions 8 and 9; a northern bypass for Dunstable; and dualling the A421 from Bedford to the M1. We also need to invest in improvements to capacity on key arterial routes, however. Last December, I announced proposals to widen to four lanes both the M6 between Manchester and Birmingham and the M1 through the east midlands, as well as other major improvements. The studies that we are dealing with today recommended further improvements to strategic road arteries, including further stretches of the M1 and the M25.
	Today, therefore, I am asking the Highways Agency to develop proposals to widen the M1 from the M25 to Milton Keynes to four lanes and also to widen parts of the M1, M62, A1(M) and M18 in south and west Yorkshire. That, in conjunction with the measures that I announced earlier, will significantly expand capacity of the M1 from London to Yorkshire. A third of the M25 already has four lanes. Today, I am also asking the agency to take forward the study recommendation to widen most of the remaining three-lane sections of the M25 to four lanes, and, as recommended by the west midlands study, to develop a strategic link between the new M6 toll road and the M54. Many of these improvements support the Government's plans for the growth areas in the Thames gateway, between London and Cambridge and in the Milton Keynes-south midlands area.
	We have to bear in mind that our central objective is to enable people to travel in a way that is consistent with our environmental and social objectives. There are therefore some recommendations in these studies that I cannot accept. As I said before, unless there is an overriding public interest in a scheme, there should be a strong presumption against building roads through areas of outstanding natural beauty or other sensitive sites. We have a clear duty to do everything that we can to preserve the environment. On regeneration grounds, the west midlands study recommended dual carriageways around Stourbridge and Wolverhampton. The justification, however, as the local planning inquiry recognised, was doubtful. These roads would cut through an area of remarkable unspoilt countryside. I believe that we can find better ways of achieving regeneration of the west midlands. That is why I reject those proposals and instead support the case for the regional assembly's study of regeneration in the black country.
	Similarly, on the south coast, the Arundel bypass would cut across water meadows damaging an area of outstanding beauty. I am rejecting that proposal, as well as proposals to expand junctions with flyovers on the Chichester bypass and the proposal for a tunnel at Worthing. Each, in my view, has environmental consequences that are unacceptable and avoidable. In addition, at an estimated cost of more than £500 million, there are question marks over the Worthing tunnel's affordability. There are problems on these roads, however, and I am therefore asking the Highways Agency to identify alternative solutions, recognising the need to support planned economic growth. In addition, on environmental grounds, I am asking the agency to take a hard look at other recommendations to see if there are less damaging alternatives. For example, I accept the need for safety improvements to the level crossing on the A27 at Beddingham. The road already runs through an area of outstanding natural beauty, however, and I am asking the agency to redesign the scheme to reduce its impact on the surrounding landscape.
	I have set out today how we have adopted a measured and balanced approach: targeting action where it is most needed, making better use of existing capacity, investing in public transport and strategic increases in capacity. However, I believe that we now need to go further, which brings me to the fourth element of our approach.
	Looking ahead, as the economy grows and people become better-off, we know that we will face increasing pressures on road space. As I have said previously, looking 20 to 30 years ahead, we cannot build our way out of all the pressures that we face. Now is the right time to examine how making use of modern technology could make better use of road space in the future. As we do that, we will do it in a new context. In the next four years, we will introduce charging for all lorries using UK roads based on the distance that they travel. Accompanied by a reduction in fuel duty, overall, the UK haulage industry will not pay more. That will allow us in future, for example, by varying charges, to encourage lorries to use motorways at off-peak times.
	Clearly, however, there is a world of difference between a scheme for 430,000 lorries and one for 26 million cars. No country in the world has done anything on such a scale before. Technically, that is an entirely different proposition to congestion charging in London, for example, where a charge is paid to drive within a boundary. There are many issues that need to be addressed, such as the protection of privacy and whether such a scheme could work technically. That is why the time has come to set up a feasibility study to investigate these issues in detail. Last month, my Department held a seminar for motoring, business and environmental groups and others to look at these issues. It was clear that for a scheme to be sustainable in the long term there needs to be a consensus—not just politically but a consensus across the country.
	Today, therefore, I am publishing a discussion paper looking at managing roads to get the best out of the road space that we have, the possibilities opened up by new technology, and getting the balance right between additional capacity and measures that ensure that benefits are locked in, whether through physical measures or pricing. Copies of this discussion paper will be available from the Vote Office. Our objective must be to provide a better deal for the motorist. Road pricing would be a radically different approach, but it could have huge potential to reduce congestion to allow faster, more reliable journeys, giving motorists a better choice about how and when they travel. We would be failing future generations if we did not test its feasibility and examine the gains that could come from it.
	We are investing in major improvements to our transport infrastructure—both road and rail. We are putting right decades of neglect and underinvestment. We are facing up to the pressures that we know that we will face in the future. I commend this statement to the House.

Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his customary courtesy in providing me with a copy of his statement. Let me begin by declaring both an interest and a direct personal experience. In the 1960s and early 1970s the farm on which I grew up was surrounded by peaceful countryside. Then it was decided to put the M11 through a field to one side of the house. Later, the M25 was put through a field directly behind the house. After that, we had to get used to bright lights throughout the night and a constant roar of traffic 24 hours a day. Quick checks indicate that what the Secretary of State has announced—widening motorways largely within the present embankments—seems unlikely to have much effect on that family home or the businesses on those parts of the surrounding land owned by my family, but it may make things a little noisier.
	Given that personal background, I have every sympathy with those who are concerned about the impact on themselves and their environment from road projects. However, like the vast majority of those living near motorways, I use them myself; and like absolutely everyone else in this country I rely on goods and services almost entirely carried by road. Whatever the personal inconvenience to some of us, and however close to home it gets, the fact remains that Britain urgently needs an upgraded road network. Whatever other accusations may be levelled at me, I therefore hope that I can be acquitted of nimbyism—my family's back yard is already more than playing its part.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that his announcements today on widening several motorways and dealing with a number of bottlenecks are hugely welcome but also hugely belated?
	I will not ask the Secretary of State to apologise for the shocking blind alley down which the Government went after 1997 when they seemed to believe that, if they stuck their head in the sand and refused to build any new roads at all, the needs of business and motorists would simply go away. I will not ask him for an apology, because it was not his decision. However, will he please get an apology from the man who got it all so catastrophically wrong throughout the last Parliament—the Deputy Prime Minister?
	Does the Secretary of State understand the genuine anger of many businesses, large and small, at the fact that their competitiveness has been steadily eroded by the growing gap between the quality of the British road network and that in the rest of Europe? Will he confirm that, even with today's announcements, we will still have a smaller road building programme than in many other European Union member states and that, after its completion, we will still have significantly fewer miles of motorway per head of population than any other major EU country? Will he also confirm that, even with these projects, he does not think he has a prayer of hitting the targets in the 10-year transport plan for cutting congestion?
	On rail, will the Secretary of State confirm that, while he boasts that he will double the amount spent by the taxpayer between 2001 and 2005, it will be 2010 before train punctuality returns to the levels of 2000. On buses and coaches, why has he specifically rejected the recommendation of the M25 orbit multi-modal study for a strategic authority to create a high-quality orbital coach network?
	The Secretary of State indicated today that he wants to toy with the idea of road pricing in order, presumably, to appease the environmentalist lobby. But, characteristically, he does not actually want to commit himself, lest he antagonise motorists. Should he not stop playing a game of tease, and admit his real intentions? Was not his silence on several key points about road pricing immensely instructive? Who would pay for the installation of the necessary hi-tech equipment in each and every car on our roads—the Government or the driver?
	What about the confidentiality of the records kept by the road pricing computers? This Government used medical records to smear a little old lady who complained about her hospital treatment, so how could they remotely be trusted not to abuse computer records giving information about where every driver in the country drives for every minute of the day or night?
	With Ministers having already exempted themselves from paying the congestion charge, why was there no pledge that they would themselves pay any road pricing charges that they introduce? Does the Secretary of State not see that it would be absolutely scandalous if, yet again, the Government introduced one law for themselves and a different law for everyone else? Above all, why was there no categorical assurance—indeed, no assurance at all—that road pricing charges would not be additional to the sky-high motoring taxes that we already have? Does not that show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would simply use road pricing as yet another stealth tax—this one a particularly punitive, regressive and vicious stealth tax—on top of all the other tax rises the Government promised not to bring in but then slapped on the British people?
	How can the Secretary of State possibly believe that charging motorists for driving on any road, at the eye-watering figure of up to 50p a mile, can remotely be justified when we already have the highest fuel taxes in the western world? When will the Government learn that they should stop seeking to penalise, persecute, harass and overtax the British motorist? When will they accept that driving is not a sin?
	All that the Secretary of State has promised us today on the roads is what last month he promised us on the railways. If the nation gives the Government billions of pounds in extra taxes and waits patiently for 10 years or so, things might just get back to being only as bad in 2010 or 2013 as they were in 2000. Does he not recognise how utterly unacceptable that is? Is it not now clear that motorists and businesses will never get a fair deal from this Government?

Alistair Darling: Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's final point, which was all too predictable. As I know from experience, it can sometimes be difficult for Opposition spokesmen to look ahead and consider the bigger picture, but the hon. Gentleman clearly failed to do that. I shall return to that point shortly.
	I shall deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised. The road studies are all entirely consistent with what we said in the 10-year plan, namely, that existing roads would have to be widened and improved. It was all clearly set out. I caution the hon. Gentleman about suggesting that somehow we have been neglectful of road building. It is common ground in many parts of the House that successive Governments have been guilty over the years of stop-go funding for transport. I remind him in the nicest possible way that, in 1990, the then Conservative Government announced plans to build 500 routes. By 1997, only 150 were left on that list; the rest had to be cut because of the public expenditure difficulties that they had got themselves into. He should be careful about suggesting that somehow his Government were not guilty, as other Governments have been, of stop-go funding. With the £180 billion of public and private expenditure that is available, we are now ensuring that we are putting money steadily into our transport infrastructure.
	In relation to the railways, spending is doubling and reliability will improve. One thing is certain: if spending were to be cut by 20 per cent., reliability would get worse and worse, and we would go back to the problems that we inherited.
	Given everything that the hon. Gentleman said about bureaucracy, I am astonished that his one new policy announcement is that he wants a strategic authority for coaches. I should have thought that running buses and coaches was best left to existing organisations, rather than to a new quango set up to do it.
	That brings me to the points that the hon. Gentleman made about road pricing. Let me plead guilty to the fact that road pricing is not something that the Government dreamt up. Indeed, I am sure that some Conservative Members will recall that, in 1993, an excellent document called "Paying for Better Motorways" was published by the Conservative Government under the signatures of the Secretaries of State for Transport, for Wales and for Scotland. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) says that he rejected it, but perhaps he should take a good look at Hansard of 1993 and 1994. On 2 December 1993, the now Lord MacGregor set out what the then Government were going to do, including taking forward plans for pricing and legislation. Guess who asked the question? The treat of putting a planted question is usually given to a loyal, trusted Back Bencher— someone who is going places and who agrees with the Government's policy. I see that the question was asked by the current Leader of the Opposition.
	To claim that the Tories know nothing about road pricing and would have nothing to do with it is slightly disingenuous. I understand that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale once had a job as a researcher in Conservative party central office. He should go back and start doing his research.
	We are about to introduce, with the complete support of the road haulage industry, lorry road user charging from 2006. It will be accompanied by a reduction in fuel and other duties so that the industry will not pay more overall. The advantage to the industry, which it recognises, is that the charge will be based on the distance that the lorries actually travel. That also gives us the potential to ensure that, if people travel at off-peak times when the roads are less crowded, they will pay less. All that I am saying at this stage is, for goodness sake, let us have the courage to see whether it is feasible to do this for cars.
	The hon. Gentleman is in substantial difficulty. If he says no to that suggestion and will not think about it, he has two alternatives. The first is to try to build one's way out of the congestion problems with more and more concreting over of the country. That would be astronomically expensive, as well as environmentally disastrous. Even worse would be to consign motorists to unlimited congestion with no relief in sight. I suggest that we as a Government—perhaps with some degree of cross-party consensus—should at least ask ourselves whether road pricing could provide a better deal for motorists. We are looking a long time ahead but, if we do not have the courage to do that, future generations will rightly condemn us for not doing so.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Everyone who travels by road or public transport will welcome this balanced statement. However, will my right hon. Friend assure me that he does not accept the idea that putting more money into roads will automatically improve the situation for the average motorist or for business? He and I both know that that will simply put the gridlock off until a future date. The important thing is for him to assure the public that the rail and road improvements will march hand in hand. Will he tell me that the Strategic Rail Authority is taking serious notice of the plans that have been produced and will make sure that its improvements will come on line in time?
	Will right hon. Friend also assure me that, before we have hard shoulder running on motorways, the emergency services will be consulted very carefully, because they will be unhappy about that?
	I sat for many years in the House when all that happened was that public transport lost the support of Governments, so will my right hon. Friend accept that, at long last, it is a great relief to hear someone who is genuinely committed to improving transport throughout the United Kingdom?

Alistair Darling: I thank my hon. Friend. As I said, there are four strands to the strategy that we are adopting. The first must be to make better use of the road network, and I assure her that motoring organisations will be consulted on hard shoulder running. That scheme would be new to this country, although it is used in countries such as Holland. It would have to be accompanied by stringent safety conditions, but it could ease some of this country's bottlenecks.
	The second strand is to ensure that we invest in public transport. My hon. Friend is right that consistent large investment in public transport—both road and rail—is necessary, and we are committed to that. The third element is that there must be investment in new capacity at specific pinch points. The problem is that that should have been done over decades. My announcements today and last December outline a programme that will steadily improve capacity but that must be accompanied by the fourth strand of the strategy: we must look ahead to the next 20 to 30 years and ask how we can better manage demand and give motorists better choice. There is a growing interest in examining that across the political spectrum—if not in the House—and we need to take it seriously.

Tom Brake: May I thank the Secretary of State for giving me an advance copy of his statement? We welcome the measures that he announced to improve public transport, create expressways and deal with bottlenecks. We also welcome the fact that several proposals were rejected on environmental grounds.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm the balance of spending on roads versus public transport schemes that arises from his statement? He will recall that the Government's transport White Paper in 1998 stated that the Government recognised the need to "reduce dependence on cars". It said:
	"The priority will be maintaining existing roads rather than building new ones".
	It also said:
	"Simply building more and more roads is not the answer to traffic growth."
	Does he think that his statement is consistent with that approach?
	The Secretary of State will also be aware that since 1997, the cost of rail travel has increased by 8 per cent., the cost of bus travel has increased by 5 per cent. and the cost of motoring has gone down by 1 per cent. Will any measure in his statement close that gap?
	We welcome road congestion charging. Will the Secretary of State clarify which body will lead the discussions on that? Will it be the Commission for Integrated Transport, which led with the first report on the issue entitled "Paying for road use", and will the commission be asked to continue in its role of advising the Government and monitoring their progress on transport? Will he confirm that the lorry technology that is being introduced has the potential to be used for cars? If a congestion charging scheme were introduced more widely or nationally, would road tax be abolished and might petrol taxes be reduced?
	Finally, does the Secretary of State believe that the 10-year transport plan now contains so many flaws and omissions that it is time to conduct a full review with the aim of setting out a plan with a more forward-looking framework for 2015 and beyond?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who usually speaks for the Liberals, explained that he unavoidably had to be away today, so I understand why the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is speaking.
	The balance of spending is broadly as set out in the 10-year plan. We are currently spending approximately twice as much on railways as we are on strategic roads, but my announcement, which will stretch over a longer period, will mean that spending will be broadly in line with what we anticipated. The study on road pricing that I am announcing will be conducted by the Department for Transport. It is an important matter and the study will not be farmed out.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to congestion charging, but I think that it is commonly understood that that is a different technology—it is currently applied in London and there is a small scheme in Durham. He asked about lorry road user charging. The technology is similar, but there is a world of difference between a scheme for 430,000 lorries, many of which are already fitted with the necessary equipment—it is used for logistical purposes by most of the main operators in this country—and a scheme for 26 million cars. "Managing our roads", which I am publishing today, points out that rapid technological advances are being made. It would be foolish to assume that we could implement a scheme with no difficulties, or to take the other option of not even thinking about it, as is the view of several Conservative Members. The issue deserves a long hard look, but I would not underestimate the difficulties that must be overcome.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, let me tell the House that it is obvious that many Members are seeking to catch my eye. I ask for just one—and I mean one—supplementary question from each hon. Member. May I ask the Secretary of State to be reasonably brief when he replies?

David Clelland: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and especially his references to managing existing infrastructure and dealing with bottlenecks. Although he mentioned improvements to the A1(M) through Yorkshire, he made no reference to improvements to that road in Durham and Tyneside, and specifically to the notorious bottleneck on the A1 western bypass. What are the Government's proposals to deal with those problems?

Alistair Darling: The details of all my announcements are in the Vote Office. Some 400 hon. Members should have received a letter setting out detailed proposals. There are difficulties with the western side of the A1. There was a suggestion that the stretch of road should be tolled, which would be the first time that a through road had been tolled to sort out a local problem. I am aware of the pressures on the road—I have driven along it often enough—and I have asked the Highways Agency and the local authority to consider what can be done to stop local traffic spilling out on to the improved A1. Otherwise, the problem might be sorted for five years before building up again. The study did not come up with an especially satisfactory solution for that stretch of road and I acknowledge that further work is required.

Patrick Cormack: While there will be great rejoicing in the west midlands and South Staffordshire about the right hon. Gentleman's sensible decision to drop the western orbital scheme and the bypasses for Wolverhampton and Stourbridge, there will be concern about the proposal for an M6-M54 link because of environmental factors. Will he assure me that those factors will be taken most carefully into account and that local people and their Member of Parliament will be properly consulted?

Alistair Darling: Yes, of course I can give that assurance because it is important to consult at every stage. It is also important that, when we consider improvements such as widening roads or building new roads, we do what is best environmentally. I am sure, however, that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that it is important for traffic to be able to link into the new M6 toll road, because otherwise it will not work.

Jon Trickett: People in Yorkshire will especially welcome the enhancements to the motorway infrastructure in their vicinity. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that such building will not impede relief work in areas such as mine that suffer from social and economic regeneration problems? Will he assure me that proposals to build a relief road from Hemsworth to the A1(M) will not be impeded by his announcement, because that road will bring much-needed jobs to my patch?

Alistair Darling: The intention is that my announcement today will not get in the way of anything that is currently under way, because that would be a great pity. Some of the improvements to the motorway network will involve widening and some will introduce better management of existing flows, and I am sure that they will all help. In that particular study area, the amount going to local transport plans to be spent on transport by local authorities has increased from £49 million in 1999 to £104 million, so a lot of money is also available for local schemes.

Michael Fallon: Given that the widening of the M25 that the Secretary of State announced sounds like it will turn London's green belt into an asphalt belt, what reassurance can he give my constituents in west Kent that their environment will be safeguarded? What extra noise protection and muffling measures will be considered to protect them against the additional capacity that he is proposing?

Alistair Darling: In relation to the M25, clearly it was a difficult decision. The hon. Gentleman will know that the study, which involved many people who are independent of the Government and consultation with local authorities, decided that it is necessary to expand the remaining sections from three lanes to four. However, he is right that where that is done, every possible step needs to be taken to reduce and mitigate the effects of that road. Because of the development that has taken place alongside the M25 over the past 20 years or so, it is increasingly used not just as a through road, but as a local road as well. I fear that if we do not do something about its capacity, there will be severe problems, which will adversely affect his constituents in Kent.

Martin Salter: My right hon. Friend is to be commended on his statement and his acknowledgment for the case for investment in the Thames valley, as set out in the multi-modal study. However, are we to get the long-awaited upgrade of Reading railway station to clear up what is a public transport bottleneck for the whole of the Great Western region?

Alistair Darling: The Strategic Rail Authority and Reading council are considering proposals to do up Reading station for the benefit not just of the people of Reading, but of services to the west of England. My hon. Friend is aware that I know of the problem, which he has talked to me about. I have asked the SRA to work with the local authority to see what we can do to upgrade that station and to get additional capacity to it. A number of other things are also taking place on the Great Western line that will help people in Reading.

George Young: Listening to the list of road schemes, I was overcome by nostalgia.
	The Secretary of State reminded the House that the Department published a discussion paper on motorway charging more than 10 years ago, which dealt with all the issues that appear in his discussion paper. He will know that more than 10 years ago, his predecessor said:
	"it would be feasible technologically to install motorway charging here within about five years."—[Official Report, 2 December 1993; Vol. 233, c. 648.]
	We commissioned trials and published a report on them in 1998, but since then there has been radio silence. He is now re-issuing a discussion paper that is more than 11 years old. Are those the bold decisions that we need on transport?

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming that the then Conservative Government had at least an interest in the matter. His Front-Bench spokesmen appear to have overlooked that. However, there is a difference. The technology that that Government considered was different from today's technology. Lord MacGregor looked at the sort of roadside technology that is about to be used in Germany and Austria. We are considering the feasibility of using satellite tracking, which has been used for the lorry user charging scheme. Technology has moved on dramatically in the past 10 years.
	In relation to motorways, there would be problems in applying a charging scheme only to motorways unless other measures are in place to stop the displacement of traffic on to accompanying trunk roads and quieter roads. The displacement factor needs to be considered and was not fully examined 10 years ago. However, I accept that the idea is not new. I think the first study on it was published when Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister. We should have the collective courage to have a serious look at it, and that includes the Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen as well.

Ivan Henderson: My right hon. Friend knows about the A120 in my constituency because he travelled on it earlier this year when he visited the major port of Harwich International. He is aware that it is a single-carriageway road that services a major port. There is the possibility that the port will expand greatly, hopefully in the near future. Will he give my constituents a clue when we can expect the dualling of the A120?

Alistair Darling: The A120 is being widened between Stansted and Braintree. I have announced that that will continue through to Marks Tey. My hon. Friend will be able to get the details on other roads because they are now available. I did travel along that road: there is room for improvement. However, as I think I said to him when I was in Harwich for the launch of a ship, there are many pressures in the area. There are things we can do on the A12 and the A120. Although improvements are possible, I cannot hold out the hope of dualling that road in the immediate future. We need to consider it, though.

David Wilshire: As the Member of Parliament with part of the busiest section of the M25 in my constituency—a section that more often looks like a car park than a motorway—why is it that the part-time Secretary of State has missed the obvious solution of including the Airtrack scheme in the proposals? That would link Heathrow to Staines in my constituency and achieve his objective of removing tens of thousands of local journeys off that busy part of the M25. A good rail link would also open up the airport to everyone to the south of the airport. The private sector is ready to build it, but the SRA appears disinterested in the funding that it would put in place. Has not the time come for the Secretary of State to tell the SRA to pull its finger out?

Alistair Darling: On the rail link, there is a scheme, but it is wrong to say that the funding is in place and nothing is happening. The SRA has many demands on it. Although we are doubling the amount of money available on the railways, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the existing pressures. I agree that it would be desirable to enable more people to travel by train or other public transport into Heathrow. I announced proposals that the SRA and the BAA are taking forward that will go some way to helping that situation by improving services on the Great Western line into Heathrow. I am aware of the other proposals and we will continue to consider them.

Claire Ward: The proposals to widen the M1 and the M25, both of which border my constituency, will have a huge impact on the people of Watford, together with the current upgrading of the west coast main line, which runs through the town. My constituents, especially the pensioners who live on the Meriden estate, which backs on to the M1, will want to know what direct impact the proposals will have on them. What process and consultation will take place with the community and its Member of Parliament to ensure that we diminish, as much as possible, the inconvenience and disruption caused to them?

Alistair Darling: I agree that that is important. Earlier this year, we announced the replacement of some older road surfaces. That will reduce noise, which is a concern in areas such as Watford. It might help if I explain the process. I have said which recommendations I am accepting and rejecting. They will be worked up into detailed proposals. There will be extensive consultation at that stage and planning permission will need to be sought in many, if not most, cases. That will provide an ample opportunity for just about everyone to have their say. The planning process is one reason why it takes such a long time to build infrastructure in this country. Happily, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is working on proposals to speed that up—consistent, of course, with allowing people to have their fair say.

Norman Baker: May I welcome the decision to consider further the proposal for the A27 at Beddingham, which as the Secretary of State knows is a sensitive location? He made a good decision on that. What time scale will apply to that exercise and what public consultation arrangements are in place? Will serious consideration be given to the establishment of a single-carriageway road from Beddingham to Southerham, which is the optimum solution, for reasons that I think he knows?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are considering a single-carriageway option. I have seen that junction and know the area. The problems are patently obvious. The level crossing has to go if we want more trains to run and for safety reasons. The area is of significant environmental importance. Perhaps something more sensitive might fit the bill than the original proposal.

Lynne Jones: Three years ago at the Government rail summit, Birmingham New Street station was listed as the No. 1 bottleneck in the national rail network. What are the implications of my right hon. Friend's statement for dealing with that problem? He also mentioned the biggest ever replacement of rolling stock. Will he use his influence to bring that investment forward to ensure continuity of work for manufacturing companies such as Alstom, so that we can keep the Washwood Heath factory in Birmingham open and retain skilled jobs in this country?

Alistair Darling: On the latter point, my hon. Friend will know that about 40 per cent. of rolling stock is being replaced over a five-year period. My recollection is that Alstom has won a contract to build about 900 vehicles. Two other companies also won contracts. The Government have played their part in bringing forward investment, and there is an awful lot of investment because replacing 40 per cent. of rolling stock takes a long time. However, I cannot hold out any hope of bringing that investment further forward. Most of the contracts have been let, and although there is some additional work, most of the stock is in the process of being constructed.
	I am aware of the problems at New Street, and I have asked the SRA to see what we can do to improve that station. Clearly that needs to be looked at. As my hon. Friend knows, it was built in the 1960s, and if we had our time over again it would probably not be built in the same way.

Eric Pickles: The Secretary of State will realise that many of my constituents will view the statement with a jaundiced eye, given that they have had two years of disruption on the A12, and that newly constructed road will now be used as rubble for the foundation of a three-lane highway. Given that that will involve the demolition of properties near the centre of Brentwood, can the right hon. Gentleman give us an indication about the timing that will be involved, about the purchase of properties and about the minimisation of disruption? What is the status of the various railway improvements that were promised in the study?

Alistair Darling: On the railway improvements, I set out in my detailed response to each study the stage that each one has reached and the next steps. The hon. Gentleman will be able to get that response from the Vote Office shortly, if he has not already got it.
	On the proposals that affect the hon. Gentleman's constituents, I can say, as I did a few moments ago, that where widening or new construction is proposed, a planning and consultation process must be followed which will allow him and his constituents to ensure that their interests are brought to the attention of the planners. We will do whatever we can to try to minimise the effect of any new construction, but when roads are built or widened, disruption is unavoidable; the alternative is to do nothing and just wait until the whole thing grinds to a halt.

Michael Jabez Foster: Following the decision two years ago not to proceed with the Hastings bypass, the south coast corridor multi-modal study has now recommended a link road through Hastings to give some relief to the A59. That road passes through St. Leonards, which has been declared an air quality management area. To avoid choking my constituents to death in the not-too-distant future, how soon will my right hon. Friend be able to proceed with that link road?

Alistair Darling: I have asked the local authority to develop proposals for that road, and I hope that it can do so in short order. I understand my hon. Friend's point about taking traffic away from Hastings and opening up part of the town for further development. I see no reason why the work cannot be done expeditiously, and we can then consider what has been proposed.

Keith Simpson: The Secretary of State mentioned consensus in his statement. As he is probably aware, there is a consensus throughout Norfolk that the A47 needs dualling from the A1 to Great Yarmouth. He will have received from me a letter, backed by all the local MPs and local government representatives of all parties, rejecting the multi-modal study and its conclusions. That study was called in by Norfolk county council because it was so concerned about its assumptions. However, that call-in had to be dropped because of the short time available—we were told that the A47 would have had to be left out of the proposals.
	Is the Secretary of State prepared to meet a delegation from Norfolk so that we can have some influence in the future? I accept what he said about the future. Great Yarmouth is likely to get an outer harbour in the next five years, and the A47 will barely have been dualled in its entirety.

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the pressures. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the study did not recommend dualling of the A47, at least not in the short to medium term. However, he will no doubt be aware that a number of upgrades and improvements are being carried out—bypassing smaller villages and tackling some of the safety concerns—and that work will continue. Also in East Anglia, the A11 and A14 are being significantly improved, which will help links to the region.
	In answer to the hon. Gentleman's request for a meeting, I have always made it clear that if hon. Members wish to meet a Minister in my Department, one of us will certainly be available. Although the study did not recommend the dualling of the A47, a number of things could be done that might improve it. There is also other significant investment going into East Anglia, as the hon. Gentleman will no doubt see when he looks at my full response to the study.

Linda Perham: On rail investment, may I ask my right hon. Friend about the future of Crossrail? The aim of the project is not just to secure transport improvements for the long-suffering passengers of east London and the regeneration of the area, but to maintain London's position as an international business centre and tourist destination. May I also tell him that a new all-party group on Crossrail, which I chair, was formed last night, and that I hope he will agree to meet us?

Alistair Darling: That was clearly a timely establishment of the all-party group. My colleagues and I will be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues. I have made clear my position on Crossrail on a number of occasions. If one considers the pressures on London over 20 or 30 years, the need for a rail link between east and west is pretty clear. At the moment, we are waiting for the final business case from the SRA and Transport for London. Once we have that, we need to see what it has to say. I hope, before the House rises for the recess, to set out how we intend to proceed, and that may help my hon. Friend. I cannot say anything today, not least because I still do not have the final business case. Some of the people who are busy pressurising us about it might be better employed finishing it, and then I can make a decision.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State may, during his consultation, like to visit my constituency and look at the problems caused by motorists using small villages as rat runs. Will he tell my constituents how he will protect those communities from the extra traffic that will no doubt flood through them because of road building and charging; and what extra resources he will give the county council so that it can repair the roads after the extra wear and tear?

Alistair Darling: On many of the local roads that the hon. Lady refers to, the council is responsible for traffic management and repairs. Sometimes we in this House would do well to remember that although national Government can do some things, the reason we give substantial sums to local authorities, which the hon. Lady's authority and others are getting, is to enable them to do something about these matters. They should not seek to blame others for their own shortcomings.
	On road pricing, the hon. Lady makes a fair point. One of the things that we need to consider, in relation to feasibility, is how to make sure that we do not end up with traffic simply being displaced from one road to another. As I said to the former Secretary of State for Transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the proposals made by the Conservative Government 10 years ago would have resulted in some displacement, and I am suggesting that we consider using different technology, which might avoid some of the problems raised by the hon. Lady.

David Taylor: The main arterial route linking the west and east midlands is the M42/A42, which is used by thousands of my constituents every day and is seriously congested at peak times. I note the Secretary of State's intention to allow controlled use by cars of the hard shoulder, operating under stringent safety conditions. Can I tell him that the route has an unfortunate history of multi-vehicle accidents, including multiple fatalities, the most recent of which involved a vehicle running into the back of a minibus that was going rather slowly, and killing several people? Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how he intends to evaluate the safety factors referred to in his statement, because many people in North-West Leicestershire would proceed warily on that particular innovation?

Alistair Darling: I understand my hon. Friend's point. When I first came across the proposal, I had similar concerns, so I went to Holland, where this scheme is used day in, day out. Of course, stringent safety procedures are necessary; the traffic must be running at a lower speed; there must be constant monitoring, and there must be additional lay-bys so that when vehicles get into trouble something can be done. The proposal has been tried out in Holland for a number of years, and it seems to be working.
	If we took a different view, and said that we would build another one, two or three lanes on the M42, that would take time, and it would be controversial because it would involve taking land that is not currently taken up by roads. Of course, it would also be expensive. We should see whether or not the pilot works. It will involve detailed consultation of motoring organisations and local authorities, but if it works, it may solve the problems of severe congestion to which most of our motorway network is subject during the rush hour because it is used by local traffic rather than through traffic. Our roads are designed differently from continental roads, and tend to have more junctions so that people can come on and off them, so we need to look at that.
	I understand people's concerns about safety. There are exactly the same concerns in Holland, but people seem to have been able to make the scheme work there. The point that my hon. Friend made about the contraflow system, which of course operates on roads throughout the country the whole time, reminds us that drivers should approach those areas with extreme care because of the inevitable consequences of a collision.

Archie Norman: It is all very well widening the M25, but does the Secretary of State accept that many of the arterial routes running off it, such as the A21 to Hastings, are still clogged with traffic and unsafe, not least because the Government cancelled the widening programme in 1997? Can he confirm that decisions on the A21 at Castle Hill and South Pembury have been postponed yet again, and will he undertake to publish a clear time scale for improvements and final decisions so that we can put an end to this endless review and procrastination?

Alistair Darling: May I tell the hon. Gentleman in the nicest possible way that before he stood up to speak it would have been prudent to check the position, as the A21 Tunbridge to Pembury link is going into the implementation programme today?

Howard Stoate: Anybody using the M25 will know that one of the biggest bottlenecks is the Dartford river crossing, which serves my constituency. What effect will widening the M25 have on the Dartford crossing, and does my right hon. Friend intend to carry out any impact assessments? What will the effect on the environment be, and does he have any plans to increase the capacity of the Dartford crossing, as it already causes significant tailbacks in my constituency at peak times of the day and night?

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend is right that that is clearly something that needs to be looked at. There has to be proper traffic management where the M25 connects with the Dartford crossing, and that important point will be taken into account.

Julie Kirkbride: I broadly welcome what the Secretary of State said about my part of the west midlands. I am delighted that he is not going ahead with the western orbital route, and welcome the £1 billion expenditure on public transport for the west midlands area. I hope that it will be of particular benefit to my part of Worcestershire, and I shall endeavour to see that it is.
	Notwithstanding the Secretary of State's answer to the question about safety asked by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), I welcome the way in which he intends to proceed on the M42. Could he give me a few more details, and tell me when the hard shoulder will start to be used, and how long the experiment will last before a decision is taken on whether it should be extended?

Alistair Darling: On the M42, details are set out in the consultation document, which is available from the Vote Office. Further details are available on the Department's website and in other places. If the hon. Lady wants more information, I shall happily give it to her. The pilot study is due to start in April next year.

Clive Efford: I welcome the £1 billion for the upgrade of the electricity supply on the rail network south of the Thames, particularly on the north Kent lines. I remind my right hon. Friend that in south-east London we do not have direct access to the London underground, so the rail network is crucial if we are to increase capacity and reduce the growth in car use in the road network in that part of London. Some people would leave their cars behind if they could park conveniently and have direct access to decent public transport links. As part of the upgrade of the M25, can we look at ways of encouraging people to leave their cars behind and use public transport within the area bounded by the M25?

Alistair Darling: There are a lot of schemes that do that, but I agree that a lot more could be done. When I travel up and down the country, I am struck by the fact that in some areas the railway and local authorities work closely together and have very good park and ride schemes. I was looking at some yesterday morning offered by the Chiltern railway, for example, which runs out of north-west London. There is no reason why such schemes cannot operate in south-east London as well. I agree that it is important that we improve the reliability and quality of service, particularly on the north Kent lines. The power supply improvements will help, but so too will the new rolling stock, almost half of which will go on to the London commuter services.

John Wilkinson: On west London, will the Secretary of State bear in mind the importance not only of enhancing rail links to Heathrow, on which he has made a significant announcement today, but of improving rail access to the north-west rail link at Watford junction? In that regard, could he get the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London together to initiate the Croxley link from Northwood in my constituency to Watford junction, thus extending the Metropolitan line to the west coast main line?

Alistair Darling: That is one of a number of schemes that are worth looking at. At the risk of being partisan, however, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Opposition's calls for more railways never cease to amaze me, as they oppose nearly every single penny of additional investment that we are putting in.

Nigel Waterson: Given that the Secretary of State has recognised the powerful case for improvements to the A27, will he ensure that the redesign work that he talked about reflects the safety and economic cases for improvements as well as any environmental concerns? Will he also ensure that redesign is not used as another excuse for delay on that much needed project? He will recall that the multi-modal study concluded not only that improvements should go ahead but that that should be a priority.

Alistair Darling: I am aware of the economic need to improve public infrastructure. Indeed, the South East England Development Agency met my hon. Friend the Minister of State just a couple of days ago. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck—we must ensure that the environment along the south coast is preserved but we must also make sure that we deal with congestion and help to stimulate economic development. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not always an easy balance to strike. Every one of his constituents probably wants both aims to be met, but it is not always possible.

Peter Ainsworth: Today's announcement will be greeted with dismay by my constituents who live alongside the M25. They are already concerned about the impact on the green belt, noise, pollution and the incidence of asthma. The plans come on top of proposals for a huge increase in runway capacity locally and excessive house-building targets. The cumulative effect of all that is likely to be unsustainable, so when will the Government stop treating the south-east as a giant development zone?

Alistair Darling: I remind the hon. Gentleman that at the start of our exchanges, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) set his face against even the possibility of looking at any measures to curtail demand on the roads. Unless the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) is in favour of end-to-end congestion he must, by definition, be in favour of more road construction. He cannot have it both ways. I am proposing a measured, balanced approach which avoids concreting over the south of England—I do not think that anybody wants that: neither he nor anyone else. I suggest that he has a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, because if he pursues the logic of his beliefs, there will be more and more road building, which many of us would find unacceptable.

Michael Jack: While I welcome the Secretary of State's proposals to make the best use of our existing road space, one factor in Lancashire preventing that is weak bridges. Will he look again at the support given to county councils like Lancashire on that issue, and could he also say when we can expect a firm timetable for action on improvements to the M6 motorway north of Birmingham?

Alistair Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is probably aware that there have been huge increases in the amount of money going to local authorities, precisely so that they can deal with things for which they are responsible, including some of the bridges that he referred to. If he cares to let me or my hon. Friend the Minister of State know which roads he has in mind, I shall certainly look at the matter. However, he may find that the remedy is in the hands of the county council as opposed to the Government.

Lembit �pik: In the spirit of joined-up government, can the Minister assure me that he has planned, or will plan, strategies to use modern technology to drive home working so that we can reduce congestion and pollution, and stimulate economic activity in rural areas?

Alistair Darling: We consider all these matters. The hon. Gentleman mentioned home working. It is interesting that the number of commuting trips to work has fallen, as was set out in the discussion document, while the distance that people travel has increased. In the past, people who got a new job tended to buy new houses in the area, but they are now staying put and travelling longer distances. We need to take account of all those matters in planning for the future, as well as the opportunities that new technology might provide.

Andrew Selous: Given that the documents in the Vote Office talk about implementation over the next 10 years, will the Secretary of State tell me when the Dunstable northern bypass will be built and whether the A5 through Dunstable will be de-trunked as a result and a through lorry ban imposed, as 25,000 of my constituents requested in a petition last year?

Alistair Darling: A number of detailed matters will still have to be considered. The hon. Gentleman is right that what I am announcing is inevitably a programme over a long period, as planning processes must be conducted and there must be design consultation. I am making an announcement that clears the way for some decisions. In the past five years, there have been long and detailed studies, but the time has now come when we need to get on and implement them, precisely to remove some of the inconvenience and congestion and to deliver the improved safety about which he is concerned.

Points of Order

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are well aware of the strict conventions surrounding Privy Council briefings. May I ask you and Mr. Speaker to look very carefully at today's Hansard in the context of the Prime Minister's apparently gratuitous revelation of what occurred during Privy Council briefings and perhaps report back to the House as to your conclusion about his behaviour? Furthermore, you will be aware of this provision in the ministerial code:
	it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity.
	I presume that the Prime Minister's code applies to him too. If that is so, I ask you and Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind the provisions of the ministerial code, to provide the Prime Minister with an opportunity to come back to the House if it turns out that he has made any inadvertent error, so that he can come to the House to correct it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I certainly cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any such undertakings myself, and certainly not on behalf of Mr. Speaker, as he asks. Both Mr. Speaker and I read Hansard very carefully, however, and I am sure that we will note the points that he has made.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Last Wednesday, 2 July, I asked the Prime Minister about the cases of Sally Clark and Trupti Patel and, as you will remember, about their implications for women who are accused of murdering their children. The cases have generated some interest. He was unable to give me a detailed response at the time, which I fully accept, and twice undertook to write to me. It is now more than a week since I asked the question and I have not received a letter from him[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order on the basis of the facts that he has given me so far. It is not for the Chair to interfere in correspondence between hon. Members and the Prime Minister, but his points will be on the record.

Michael Jack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some months ago, Mr. Speaker gave a very helpful ruling to guide Departments and stated that this Chamber should be the first place where announcements are made. In the light of the very detailed information given on the statement that we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Transport, may I ask that such statements be re-examined in the light of Mr. Speaker's guidance? I would also include in that examination of the pre-releasing of information the announcement made earlier this week about the state of the national lottery. I thought that Mr. Speaker was entirely clear, but the message does not yet seem to have got through to the Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker feels extremely strongly about these matters and I know that he will have taken very serious note of whatever has occurred.

Local Government Procurement

Tony Baldry: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a national approved list of organisations that have the capability to perform local authority contracts under Best Value guidance; to make provision for companies to qualify for the approved list; to issue companies with a Certificate of Registration valid for every local authority if they meet the criteria set; to make provision to make the approved list of registered companies available to every local authority; and for connected purposes.
	The present system of local government procurement does not work well. It costs local councils more money than it should to tender contracts and local businesses more money than it should to pre-qualify for contracts. The Bill seeks to streamline the local government procurement process. It would reduce the regulatory burden and costs for small and medium-sized enterprises and introduce a national system of universally agreed criteria. It would also make it necessary for companies to complete the pre-qualification procurement process only once.
	Under the current system, companies have to complete the pre-qualification process even when the same company has already done the same work for another local authority or even the same local authority in a previous year. That costs companies and councils unnecessary money. To understand that problem better, we must put it in the context of the burdens on business today. Last year, the Institute of Directors, after conducting a survey of its members, concluded:
	red tape is now completely out of hand and a major impediment to doing business and employing people particularly for small and medium sized enterprises.
	The British Chambers of Commerce believes that the 36,000 increase in the number of people out of work last month, which is, incidentally, the biggest monthly increase in 10 years, is due to higher taxes and increased red tape.
	The Select Committee on Trade and Industry noted in a report published in September 1999I was a member of the Committee at the time:
	It is becoming increasingly widely recognised that the burden of compliance with regulation of all kinds bears down disproportionately on small firms . . . the burden of regulation is quite rightly now a central part of the SME agenda and must remain there.
	The Committee's conclusion was reinforced in the report on SMEs by the Better Regulation Task Force published in April 2000:
	the cumulative burden on SMEs must be considered against an assessment of how much information it is reasonable to expect one person to assimilate and act upon.
	A survey carried out earlier this year by the British Chambers of Commerce found that the total cost of regulations on business introduced since 1998 is now more than 20 billion20 billion extra for businesses as a consequence of regulations introduced by this Government.
	Other recent surveys suggest that the Government introduce some 3,000 new regulations every year. I have conducted my own survey. I asked almost all SMEs in north Oxfordshire before the 2002 Budget what they believed burdened their businesses the most, and top of the list was over-regulation. Red tape is a huge problem for business, but a particular one for SMEs. The annual survey of the Small Business Service recently recommended:
	regulations affect business by taking administration time and increasing running costs. 71 per cent think the government should take action to reduce the burden of regulation . . . Some of the suggestions included: make regulations simpler and more realistic; make exemptions for small businesses; try to improve co-ordination between local authorities.
	Improving co-ordination between local authorities is part of what the Bill seeks to achieve.
	The Bill seeks to remove one unnecessary burden. It will tackle pre-qualificationthe part of the tender where companies and councils are considering only who might be considered for a contract. In May this year, the Better Regulation Task Force published a report entitled Government: Supporter and Customer. The report states in its recommendations on local government procurement:
	small businesses simply do not have the resources to put together all the pre-qualification and tendering information in the numerous ways in which it is asked for. We have seen requests for one pre-qualification information that run to over 30 pages . . . some run to over 200 pages . . . This represents a huge resource investment for a small business. There is scope to simplify and reduce the amount of paperwork the public sector requires at this stage in the procurement process . . . The public sector should develop a common core pre-qualification information document for lower value contracts so that forms do not have to put together the same information in different formats at the expression of interest stage . . . OGC and the ODPM working with the LGA should formulate together a standard template for core pre-qualification informationso there is a consistent format across both local and central government and the information requested is proportionate to the lower value contracts.
	I wholly agree. Furthermore, I point to concerns that the Federation of Small Businesses has raised about EC regulations on public sector contracts. It has asserted that approved supplier lists are widely used, although it states that
	how a business gets on to these lists is shrouded in mystery.
	The Bill would make it clear that any company that complies with the criteria agreed by the ODPM, the LGA and the DTI will be put on an approved list of registered companiesa list that will be made widely available to every local authority.
	I ask the House to consider the experience of one company in my constituencyChiltern Invadex, in Bicester. The company manufactures products designed to enhance mobility and independence in order to improve the daily life of people with disabilities. It works with housing associations and NHS trusts, and a sizeable quantity of its products is purchased by local authorities throughout the country. To provide goods to a local authority, the company has to be on a local authority's approved list. That is where the problems start for Chiltern Invadex and for many other companies.
	No one suggests that having some sort of approved list is not sensible. The problem is that every local authority has to have its own separate set of criteria and its own separate set of forms for its own separate approved list. Chiltern Invadex tells me that the documentation for a typical London borough is about 6in thick. Last week the company wrote to me, saying that
	the majority of local authorities administer their own lists. Some use the DTI approved list called Constructionline of which we are members . . . the cost to us for Constructionline is circa 550 per annum. We have recently tendered for some work in East Anglia and it looks as if we will be successful. The value is 30,000. The authority involved uses another provider called Sinclair. We asked them to accept Constructionline as appropriate evidence of our capabilities and bona fides. Alas, Constructionline is not acceptable to them. We now have to complete a further approved list for Sinclair, at a cost of 1000 and thereafter per annum, if we wish to continue membership of that list. Consequently, we have immediately incurred costs of 1000 out of the contract . . . or alternatively we could withdraw our tender. The latter is an anathema to us in the current climate.
	That is a crazy situation. If local authorities are unhappy with using the DTI approved list, why cannot the LGA agree with the ODPM on a national set of criteria to produce a national certificate of registration and a single national approved list? That would surely be preferable to the additional costs incurred for registering membership with different approved lists with different local authorities that often have the same criteria but on a different form. In response to my representations on the pre-qualification problems illustrated by Chiltern Invadex, Ministers at the ODPM said that they are currently developing a national strategy, but they have not yet given any details of exactly what that means.
	A national approved list comprising universal criteria would more satisfactorily meet the Government's thinking on local government procurement. Indeed, when the Government abolished compulsory competitive tendering to introduce best value, they did so on the basis of their 1997 manifesto commitment, which stated that
	the basic framework, not every detail, of local service provision must be for local government.
	That is what the Bill would do. It would be for the LGA to decide with the ODPM and DTI what the national framework for the approved list should be at pre-qualification, leaving the detail and important decisions on service delivery with local authorities.
	The 1997 Labour party manifesto pledge stated:
	Costs count but so does quality.
	Costs do count to companies and councils that have to meet excessive and escalating costs. As more contracts are put out to tender, companies have to sift through doorstep-sized pre-tender forms at an unnecessarily early stage of the procurement process. Chiltern Invadex estimates that it costs it 20,000 every year to apply for 60 separate approved lists. By contrast, applying to just one approved list would cost it only 300 a year. It is not only small companies that incur the cost of such red tape: Chiltern Invadex observes that
	the likely cost to local and public authorities of maintaining their lists . . . by any conservative measure, it must run into millions of pounds per annum.
	I agree. The Government are wrong to suggest that cutting costs equals cutting quality. The cost of a fragmented approved list reduces quality and precludes the number of companies that can afford to enter the pre-qualification procurement process. The Bill would effectively extend an agreed approved list to all local authorities.
	I hope that the Bill will be approved by the House, because it can only mean lower costs, lower council tax, more jobs and more services for local people, local companies and local authorities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Tony Baldry, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Andrew Lansley, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. John Maples and Mr. Francis Maude.

Local Government Procurement Bill

Tony Baldry accordingly presented a Bill to establish a national approved list of organisations that have the capability to perform local authority contracts under Best Value guidance; to make provision for companies to qualify for the approved list; to issue companies with a Certificate of Registration valid for every local authority if they meet the criteria set; to make provision to make the approved list of registered companies available to every local authority; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].

Convention on the Future of Europe

[Relevant documents: Twenty-Fourth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 200203, on The Convention on the Future of Europe and the Role of National Parliaments (HC 63-xxiv); Twenty-Sixth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee of Session 200203, on The Convention's proposals on criminal justice (HC 63-xxvi)]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendment (b) standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Jack Straw: I beg to move,
	That this House believes that the draft Constitutional Treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe is a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference; agrees that the procedures of an enlarged European Union require reform, and welcomes the commitment of the Convention to a Union which respects the national identities of its Member States and which has only those powers explicitly conferred on it by them; congratulates the UK parliamentary, government and European Parliament representatives on the Convention for their contributions, and notes the valuable work of the relevant parliamentary committees of both Houses; notes the Government's decision to table as a Command Paper Parts I, II and IV; recalls that decisions on what is included in any forthcoming Treaty will be made by unanimity by the elected governments of all EU member states; and reaffirms Parliament's role in scrutinising and approving legislation required to give effect to any future Treaty's provisions.
	I first draw the House's attention to a very serious error in our motion. [Hon. Members: Resign!] I think that the jury is out on whether it is a resignation matter. More assiduous Members will have noted that the motion refers to the inclusion of parts I, II and IV of the Convention in the Command Paper, whereas only parts I and II were included. I own up to that. Part IV, although available, had not been finally signed off by the Convention. However, for the better information of hon. Members the Vote Office is kindly making available the existing draft part IV. I apologise to the House for the error.
	I want to deal with five key questions. First, why did the European Union Heads of Government decide that a new constitution for the EU was needed and, related to that, why did they agree that there should be the two-stage process of the Convention followed by an intergovernmental conference? Secondly, what process will the IGC follow? Thirdly, what are the key elements of the draft constitutional treaty produced by the Convention? Fourthly, which of those elements will we wish to change in the negotiations at the IGC? Fifthly, how will Parliament be involved in the process of scrutiny before, during and after the IGC?

John Bercow: What about the referendum?

Jack Straw: I shall not, of course, forget the referendum.

Richard Bacon: Is that point six?

Jack Straw: No, I will cover it when I come to the amendment.
	Before I deal with those questions, let me again record my thanks to the parliamentary Members, of all parties, of the British delegation to the Convention, and to all the staff in this House and in my Department who supported them. Our team has garnered tributes from across Europe. One of the finest tributes comes from a leading French constitutional expert, Robert Badinter, who commented in a French weekly, Le Nouvel Observateur, that
	the search for consensus allowed the side showing the firmest will to take definitive control of the game, artfully trading concessions on the inessential to make sure of winning the essential . . . to the extent that we should dub this constitution for the Europe of 25 'la Britannique.'
	[Interruption.] I invite Conservative Members to look at many other such quotations, which I am happy to place before the House, and which come from a wide range of commentaries in a wide range of journals across the European Union.
	Although we have reservations, which I shall discuss later, about aspects of the draft Convention, we embarked on the exercise with a considerable programme that was clearly set out in our manifesto. We have largely succeeded in achieving our aims.
	I pay tribute to the work of the Convention's President, Valry Giscard d'Estaing. I did not know him before he took on that role, but I have had the opportunity to watch him at work and my respect and admiration for him has grown greatly. Brokering a text between all the participants is an extraordinary personal achievement.
	My first point was about why European Union Heads of Government decided that the Union needed a new constitution and why they agreed to a two-stage process of Convention followed by intergovernmental conference. I say new because a constitution for the European Union already exists. It is found in several lengthy treaties, dating back to the treaty of Rome, and each grants the Union different powers.

William Cash: Treaty.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman mutters treaty from a sedentary position, but he is a reasonable lawyer

Menzies Campbell: No.

Jack Straw: His fellow lawyer from the same chambers in the Faculty of Advocates says that he is not a reasonable lawyer; I do not resort to that. However, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) should know that the Convention will be a treaty if it is given legal effect; it has no other basis. There is no difference in power between the current legal instruments, which form the constitution of the European Union, and a new constitution, except that the existing constitution is found in a plethora of treaties. Some of the treaties are contradictory and part of the constitution is called the treaties of the European Community and the other part is described as the treaty of the European Union. The current constitution is therefore confusion compounded. One purpose of the Convention is to simplify the treaties and put them into a single text. The Opposition should at least agree with us about that, if not about anything else.

Keith Vaz: Will my right hon. Friend set out the Government's view on what will become of the charter of rights in the new Convention?

Jack Straw: Let me deal briefly with that. If my hon. Friend reads not only part II, which sets out the charter of rights, but especially article II-51, he will realise that there is a severe limitation on the application of the charter. Article II-52 provides for considerable restrictions on the scope and interpretation of its rights and principles.
	The provisions of the charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union; they do not extend the Union's powers. Article II-52 requires that, in the case of overlap between the charter of rights and the European convention on human rights, the interpretation of the Convention would apply. Article II-52(4) states:
	Insofar as this Charter recognises fundamental rights as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, those rights shall be interpreted in harmony with those traditions.
	Those are helpful safeguards and I hope that hon. Members will continue to scrutinise them. We shall take account of any further observations by hon. Members in our negotiations at the IGC.

Michael Spicer: If, as the Foreign Secretary claims, the Convention is simply another treaty, will it be possible freely to exit it other than through the new constitution?

Jack Straw: I did not say that it was simply another treaty. [Interruption.] It is an important treaty that has been made under international law. For the first time, there are provisions for a member state to leave the European Union, which is important. Just as people should be able to decide freely whether to join the European Union, they should have freedom to decide to leave. Such provisions should be clear and on the face of the constitution, and they are.
	European Union leaders have long recognised that the current constitutional texts are a recipe for incoherence in a Union of 15. Post-enlargement, that ramshackle framework would not be up to the task of forging consensus among 25 member states. Hon. Members of all parties supported enlargementwe recognise what that means for Britain's national security and prosperity. We all want the countries of the former Soviet bloc as well as Cyprus and Malta to become part of the European family. However, in practice, agreement ends there. The Opposition fail to recognise that if we want enlargement to succeed and the former Soviet satellites to prosper, we must overhaul the Union's institutional make-up in their interests.
	At Nice, European Union leaders agreed technical changes to allow for enlargement. However, even as they agreed that treaty, they recognised that further reforms would be necessary. They followed their declaration at Nice with another, 18 months later at the Laeken summit in December 2001. They concluded that European
	citizens want . . . the EU's institutions to be more efficient and open.
	They also set out a detailed mandate for the Convention on the Future of Europe. They agreed that it should examine whether the
	simplification and reorganisation of the treaties should not lead . . . to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union
	and
	what the basic features of such a constitution might be.
	As the Convention unfolded, a consensus developed, supported by the Government, on the need for such a text.
	The decision to follow a two-stage process of Convention and IGC rather than IGC alone had its origins in the IGC at Nice. Intractable issues were discussed at a technical level for six months, but at a political level only in the final stages of the summit. So a summit that was planned for a relatively short timetwo working dayslasted four days and nights. At the end of that exhausting and not especially happy process, Heads of Government called for a wider and more open debate to prepare the ground for the next IGC, involving all interested parties.

Lembit �pik: The Foreign Secretary mentioned the former Soviet bloc countries. To what extent has consultation taken place with the Administrations of the Baltic countriesfor example, Estonia, which I know bestto ensure that they and the general public of future member states support what existing members are debating?

Jack Straw: I know from my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain), who led the British delegation, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) and their noble colleagues in another place that we in the United Kingdom and other delegates have worked hard to ensure that the accession countries are fully involved in the process.
	At the Copenhagen summit, which took place almost six months ago, we insisted that the date for signature of any treaty should be May 2004, after accession. The new members would thus have the same rights, not simply by grace and favour, as anybody else to veto part of the treaty if they wished. However, I believe, not least through conversations with my opposite numbers in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, that the Baltic states are satisfied.

Michael Ancram: Perhaps I misheard the Foreign Secretary. Did he say that he could veto part of the treaty? How can he do that? I believed that he could veto or accept the treaty.

Jack Straw: Countries can refuse to sign the treaty. That gives them a power of veto in the negotiations. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that.
	I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks on behalf of the Conservative party, he will condemn the two leading Conservative Members of the European Parliament, Mr. Daniel Hannan and Mr. Roger Helmer

John Bercow: Excellent men.

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman says that they are excellent men. I know Mr. Hannan and I respect his views, although I do not agree with them. He is not an eccentric outside the mainstream of the Conservative party. Those two MEPs travelled to Estonia to campaign for a no vote in the referendum, against the clear policy of this House and Conservative Front Benchers. I hope that we do not have the usual weasel words from the right hon. Gentleman when he answers the debate.

David Heathcoat-Amory: I was in Estonia with Mr. Roger Helmer, who did not advise the Estonians on their choice of whether they should join the EU, but instead warned them about the constitution about which they would have to decide after joining the EU. I was present when he made that speech and I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would therefore amend his remarks.

Jack Straw: We have obviously been listening to two different Mr. Hannans. He calls for a no vote in Estonia and on 16 June in the The Daily Telegraph he said:
	I have a confession to make.
	He continued:
	If you are a Conservative Whip look away now. I am against the whole idea.
	of enlargement.
	Mr. Hannan's views are very clear. He is against enlargement. He is entitled to that view, but what we need to hear from the deputy leader of the Conservative party is his total rejection of that view, on behalf of the Conservative partya party that claims to be as fully in support of enlargement as we are.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?

Jack Straw: No. Allow me to make further progress. Mr. Hannan can answer for himself.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I specifically intervene on the Foreign Secretary to ask him to withdraw an erroneous remark about a Conservative colleague and he refuses to do that by referring to another member of the European Parliament, is that not a breach of the rules of debate? Would you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, suggest to the Foreign Secretary that he answers the point that I made rather than answer the point that he would have liked me to make.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are matters for debate.

Jack Straw: All I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that he had better go to the Library and look up The Daily Telegraph.
	 I am against the whole idea
	means I am against the whole idea. His views could not have been clearer.

Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman help me on this very important matter? Will the written constitutions of members going into this new constitution, and the practices of those that have no written constitutions, be subservient to this new overall constitution?

Jack Straw: The position of countries that do not have a single written text themselvesthe United Kingdom pre-eminentlyis no different from countries that have their own written basic text. As the hon. Gentleman knows, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1973, EU law takes precedence over our law in any event, and the same position applies in any other member states.
	When the European Council at Laeken decided on the mechanism for holding the debate on the future Europe it chose a convention, which not only included representatives of national Parliaments, the European Parliament, Commission and Governments, but took soundings from civil society, the regions and academia. People will of course argue about the product of the Convention, but I hope that we can all agree that an arrangement that has involved parliamentary representatives from the start, and which has conducted its debates in the public eye, is a vast improvement on the IGC alone.
	My second question is: what process will the IGC follow? At the recent European council in Thessaloniki, Heads of Government agreed that the IGC would start in October and be completed in time for the June 2004 elections to the European Parliament. They also agreed that the IGC would be conducted by Heads of State or Governments of the member states, assisted by Foreign Ministers. The new Italian presidency is working on the more detailed arrangements.
	My third question is: what are the key elements of the draft? I placed a 10-point summary of the draft in the Library of the House last month and I shall not repeat each of them today, but allow me to single out the central points, the text of which is before the House.
	The draft reflects the ideas, which as it happens, the Labour party's manifesto set out as one of the remits for the IGC. We set out in our manifesto that the main sources of popular legitimacy in Europe remain national Governments and Parliaments. Therefore, national Governments should be seen to be setting the agenda of the EU with the European Council setting the EU's priorities. There should be a strong independent commission ensuring that the European interest is heard and enforced and an effective European Parliament improving draft legislation and holding the Commission to account. We then went on to say that Labour wants the next IGC in 2004 to address public concerns about the way in which the EU works, spelling out in a clear statement of principles what should and should not be done at European level.
	In every particular, that is exactly what we have followed. We have followed the manifesto, and, to a significant extent, that is what has been delivered in this constitution.

Graham Allen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Jack Straw: Allow me to make some progress.
	We have a draft that begins by reciting that the Union is based on certain key principlesdignity, liberty, democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights. It calls for a union of sovereign states of Europe, with decisions taken as closely as possible to the citizens. It specifies that the Union exercises only the powers that member states give to it, acting at the EU level only when it needs to. It gives this House greater powers to police the principle of subsidiarity.
	The draft asserts the primacy of the nation state. It puts the European Councilthe institution that represents the interests of the nation states, as we said it should do in our manifestoin charge of the Union's political direction. It calls for common action where it makes sense to work togetherfor example, agriculture, transport, environment, illegal immigration and asylum. It calls on member states to act together in foreign and defence policy where their Governments all agree to do so.
	The draft also includes one of our other central reform proposalsthat a full-time President or Chair or the European Council should replace the current six-monthly rotating presidency. That will bring much needed consistency to the Union's most powerful body, the decision-making forum of its nation states.
	At Thessaloniki, EU leaders agreed that the draft treaty represented a good basis for starting the negotiations in the IGC.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Straw: I have promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
	That is exactly our position. Much good is in it, but there are elements in it that we do not support. That brings me to my fourth question: which sections of the draft would we wish to change in the interests of the UK and Europe at the IGC? I emphasise that the list that I give is provisional and not exhaustive. Part III is being finalised at the moment by the Convention, which is why a number of hon. Members are not present today, and we shall publish that and examine it. Before we reach final decisions on the position that we will take at the IGC, we want to take full account of the views of Parliament and its scrutiny work. However, we will oppose, for example, proposals to include a common defence guarantee or a self-selecting inner core for defence in the draft treaty, or to communitise the common foreign and security policy. Neither would we agree to any changes on procedure, taxation, own resources or social security, which threaten the national interest. I have told the House in earlier debates of our objections to the passarelle clause, 1-24.
	Other member states have concerns of their own. They each ultimately have the right to exercise their veto in the IGC to prevent the adoption of any measures that run counter to their national interests.
	I was interested yesterday to learn that, according to a Financial Times reporter, Joschka Fischer, the Foreign Minister of Germany, which is generally known for its proposals to extend qualified majority voting, was saying that he wanted to insist on unanimity in respect of asylum and immigration, an area where we want to insist on QMV because we happen to think that it is more in our national interest and the national interest of Europe. That is an illustration of the fact that it is not just us who will be seeking changes, but other countries as well.

Graham Allen: Regardless of whether the constitution has new elements or not, is it not none the less a symbol that allows Her Majesty's Government and anyone who is vaguely European to celebrate, promote and help understanding of the European project and therefore should be seized as an opportunity?
	My right hon. Friend also mentioned the IGC timetable, and said that it will start in October. If Members of this House and our constituents are to be involved in this process, is it not absolutely necessary, therefore, that the conference take place before we begin our negotiations in October? There is very little time left to set up the appropriate mechanisms for this House and the public to participate.

Jack Straw: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and I am grateful to him for the very constructive suggestions that he has made. I shall set out the process as I see it in due course, but I should point out that we are not starting cold. A great deal of work has been done already by this House and the other place.

Menzies Campbell: It was said in the other place on Monday that a White Paper would be published before the IGC. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that?

Jack Straw: Yes, I can. Indeed, I was going to mention that fact in about three paragraphs' time.
	The House and the other place will be the final judges of whether the treaty serves our national interest. The fifth and final question that I want to examine today is

Several hon. Members: rose

Jack Straw: I shall give way twice morevery brieflyand then I must make progress.

William Cash: The Foreign Secretary might like to answer the following questions. Why is there no reference to the opt-out for the euro in the treaty, where is the protocol that deals with it and where is the derogation in the text in front of him?

Jack Straw: The opt-out stands. That question well illustrates the fantasy-land in which some Opposition Members now reside. They seem to believe that some sleight of hand is involved, and that rather than having a referendum on the euro, we will, by excising the odd clause and protocol, suddenly wake up one morning and find ourselves members of the euro. That may be the way in which the Conservatives would handle the matter if they were in government, but it is not our way.

Angus Robertson: Before the Foreign Secretary moves on from the question of the changes that the UK Government are seeking to make during the IGC, I draw his attention to the report of the European Scrutiny Committee, which states that the Committee is
	concerned about the prospect of exclusive EU competence in the 'Conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy' and how this might affect the management of marine resources at all levels.
	I urge the Foreign Secretary to look at this issue with great seriousness. It affects many parts of the UK. Moreover and crucially, the idea that Norway or Iceland might seek to join in future, with fishing being an exclusive competence beggars belief.

Jack Straw: I promise that I shall look at this issue with great care. I should point out that the protection of marine biological resources has been an exclusive competence of the European Union, under a ruling of the European Court of Justice, since 1979. Common fisheries policy is a shared competence, but the protection of marine biological resources has been an exclusive competence for 24 years. However, I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and as I said, I promise to look at this issue with great care.

Frank Field: On the question of parliamentary scrutiny and authority, as my right hon. Friend will know from examining the Order Paper, a considerable number of his own Back Benchers believe that for this treaty to have the authority that it ought to have, it should go to a referendum. [Hon. Members: Hear, hear.] Will he remind the House which countries will be submitting, under their own constitutions, these proposals to a referendum? Which other European countries think that the step-changes in this treaty are so important that they will, for the first time, be submitting such proposals to a referendum?

Jack Straw: I will arrange for my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath to give the list[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I do not have the information. [Interruption.] I have now been given the information. Four countriesDenmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Spainhave definite plans for a referendum. ThreeItaly, France and Portugalhave not made formal decisions but are likely to hold a referendum. Thirteen countries, including Britain, have no current plans to hold a referendum. Five countries have yet to make public statements, but are considered unlikely to hold a referendum. It is obviously early days, but my guess is that about 40 per cent. of countries will decide to hold a referendum and 60 per cent. will not.
	I have given way a great deal and, with respect to the House, I will not take any further interventions, as this is a relatively short debate. Hon. Members have, rightly, already had a number of opportunities to air their views on the work of the Convention on the Future of Europe. There have been three debates in the past six weeks. Last month, my Department hosted a seminar for parliamentarians on the work of the Convention, and we are happy to do so again if the demand exists. There have been four reports by the European Scrutiny Committee and 11 by Lords EU Committees. I have placed the reports on the Table, so that Members can read them and have some idea of the extent of the work that has already been done in both Houses. The Joint Committee on the Convention has held six sittings, in which Members of both Houses have questioned parliamentary delegations to the Convention. So there has already been extensive scrutiny, which has proved as helpful to the Government as it has to Parliament.
	Last week, I wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and to Lord Grenfell to ask them and their colleagues to give urgent thought to the most effective way in which the Commons and the Lords can examine the draft constitutional treaty. As I said in my letter, this is a matter not for the Government, but for Parliament, and I am grateful for the consideration that both Committees are giving to my letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) wrote to me last month, suggesting an online discussion of the Convention's draft treaty, which would be open to parliamentarians and the public alike. A Command Paper is already on the Foreign Office website, and parts III and IV of the treaty will be. I am attracted to my hon. Friend's proposal. I have asked officials to examine the practical and resource implications, but I hope for a positive result.
	I published a Command Paper to inform today's discussion, and I shall publish a second one as soon as parts III and IV of the treaty are available. In answer to the question from the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), we will be publishing a White Paper on our objectives in advance of the opening of the IGC, but we are leaving it relatively late in order to take account of the views and interests of the House.
	One of the amendments to the Government motion calls for the treaty to be put to a referendum after the IGC negotiations. We have discussed this question in the House on three occasions recently, and on one of them the motion in question was entirely about a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reiterated the Government's position yesterday. If the draft treaty entailed a change in the fundamental relationship between the nation states and the EU's institutions, there would be a case for a referendum, but it does not. To a degree, the draft Convention tilts the balance towards the nation states and the principle of intergovernmentalism. [Interruption.] It does, and as such there is no case for a referendum.
	Given that the whole House takes the question of the content of manifestos seriously, let us make it clear that in our manifesto, we anticipated that there would be an IGC and that it would consider this range of issues. We never suggested[Interruption.] Yes, we did talk about a single text, but we never suggested that the issue should be put to a referendum. Given that this text, and what we know of the content of parts III and IV of the treaty, does not involve any change in the fundamental relationship between the EU and its member states, we believe that there is no case for a referendum.

Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Jack Straw: With great respect, I have already said that I will not give way any more.
	The debate in this House on the Convention has, shall we say, been varied. I take some comfort from what we have achieved so far by the fact that the Opposition are having to resort to extravagance and hyperbole to make their case. Thus, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) claimed just three weeks ago that I would have to bow to the authority of an EU Foreign Minister. He told this House that such a Minister would be able to veto my actions, and that the EU would take Britain's seat in the United Nations. The hon. Member for Stone claimed that the document represents a greater proposed constitutional shift
	than any in recent centuries, even going back as far as 1688.[Official Report, 11 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 747.]
	That was a little over the top. Such comments betray[Interruption.]

Peter Tapsell: Is not the reference to 1688 particularly apt, given that it is the date on which parliamentary democracy began in this country and the Convention will take it away?

Jack Straw: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman was there in 1688. However, the hon. Member for Stone went even further back than 1688 to 1649, as if somehow or other

Peter Tapsell: Answer.

Jack Straw: I am answering. Evidently, the hon. Member for Stone has not read this constitutional text[Interruption.] I have read what happened in 1688. I have read the lot. Of course what happened then helped the introduction of parliamentary democracy, but it is typical of the hon. Gentleman that he thinks history stopped in 1688. He has forgotten that it was followed by a century of the most corrupt sort of elitist Government, which required action and agitation by the labouring classes before the universal right to vote was achieved and we secured the sort of Parliament that we have today.
	Those comments disclose an all-too-familiar mindset. The Conservatives fought the last election[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I must make progress. They fought the last election on an anti-European platform, and lost for a second time by a record margin. Today's Conservative leader has none of the subtlety or forensic skills of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague). Furthermore, the opposition of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is visceral, as is that of his supporters. The drift of the Opposition is towards an unattainable renegotiation of the basis of the UK's membership, leading inevitably to this country's total separation from the Union. However, to sugar this bitter pill, which even the Opposition know would immediately be rejected by the British people, they have invented a fantasy comfort zone
	an associate EU membership of some kind,
	in the words of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), in which we could have a menu without prices and any benefits of membership that we chose with none of the obligations. Let me tell the Opposition that such a prospect is a deceit. No such never-never land would ever be available. An associate EU membership of some kind would involve obligations without influenceor, to paraphrase Baldwin, responsibility without power, the prerogative of the eunuch down the ages. Under such an arrangement, this great nation would be castrated of its power, removed of its vote, yet we would be bound to accept the last detail of the EU rules if we wanted any growing share of its markets.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Foreign Secretary to confuse a eunuch with a harlot?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the Chair should keep out of that matter.

Jack Straw: There is no confusion at all. Baldwin was talking about power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot down the ages; and I am talking about responsibility without power, the prerogative of the eunuch down the ages. The Conservative party should think carefully about what it is proposing and reflect on where an associate membership of the EU would lead them. It would indeed lead them to responsibility without power and we would be bound to accept every last detail of what the EU imposed on us without any proper influence over it. That would be a humiliation for this nation, and the approach itself is born of a fundamental failure of the Conservative party's belief and confidence in itself and in this nation. Under its leadership we would always be the victims of some evil forces of darkness from the continent. We would never be able to win the argument and make the alliances that both Edward Heathand, yes, Margaret Thatchermanaged, and which we have successfully strengthened and sustained in the national interest.
	Ours is the patriotic case for Britain's membership of the European Union. I am confident that the final treaty that emerges from the IGC will be a good deal for Britain. But for an Opposition who are instinctively committed to undermining the European Union, the treaty will probably be a disappointment, because it should result in a strong Europe with efficient institutions, which better attract the support of Europe's citizens. It should deliver a more democratic Europe, anchored in the legitimacy of the nation state. I commend the motion to the House.

Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment (b), in line 1, leave out from 'House' to end and add 'notes the draft Constitutional Treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe; and believes that no constitutional European Treaty agreed by the Intergovernmental Conference should be ratified without a referendum.'.,
	standing in my name, the name of the Leader of the Opposition and the names of my right hon. Friends.
	I start by joining the Foreign Secretary in congratulating and thanking hon. Members of the House and members of the European Parliament who served on the Convention. We all owe them a debt of gratitude for their work. This is the fourth of several debates on the European issue and I have to say that, of all of them, this must be the most surreal. I always rather respected the Foreign Secretary for the calm way in which he usually deals with debates of this sort, but having just listened to his rant, I can think only that it is a sign of insecurity and that he should perhaps take a little medical advice for his condition. We know that he has been under a lot of strain recently so perhaps we should forgive him.
	I shall explain why the debate is surreal. Governments normally ask for the support of the House on proposals that are important significant and beneficialbut not on this issue. On the proposed European constitution the Government are at pains to tell us how unimportant it all is, how insignificant its impact will be and how wrong we all are to get worried. While the rest of integrationist Europe talks up the proposed constitution, the Government Front Benchers talk it down. While the rest of supranationalist Europe glows with pride at the overall impact of the proposals, our Government pretend that nothing much has changed.
	When Joschka Fischer of Germany boasts:
	We have a draft constitution that is worthy of the word 'historic',
	he is clearly not talking about a text, but a constitution. Yet the Leader of the House, in a previous incarnation, told us that it was just a tidying-up exercise. The Foreign Secretary said today that this was not a special document or a constitution, but the document before us is called a treaty to establish a draft constitution. We are talking about a constitution. The Spanish Convention member Inigo Mendez de Vigo commented that this was
	the most important text since the Treaty of Rome in 1957,
	but the Foreign Secretary tells us that we are not talking about a substantial expansion of EU-wide powers, or a radical overhaul of the Union's existing treaties and competences. How can he say that? What lies before us is a written constitution explicitly enshrining the principle of EU legal supremacy over our national laws.

Angela Browning: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the word constitution does not feature at all in the rather long motion before the House today?

Michael Ancram: I had noticed that, but I also noticed that the document is a draft treaty to establish a constitution, so the word is in the document, but apparently not in the mouth of the Foreign Secretary.
	The Government's clear ploy is to set up a false debate, suggesting that all those who do not support their moves towards a more integrated and politically united Europe want to get out. The Minister for Europe was at it again in the Thunderer column in today's The Times. More a splutter than a thunder, as far as I was concerned! However, it is simply not true and Government Members know that it is not true. We are in the European Union. We do not want to leave it. That is not the debate. The debate is about what sort of European Union we believe is best suited to the challenges that lie ahead. That is the debate that the Government are so desperate to avoid.

Lembit �pik: On that point, the right hon. Gentleman tells us that his party is opposed to our country leaving the EU, so why have members of his party gone to Estonia and sought to talk the Estonians out of the benefits and privileges of the very membership that he assures us is important to the UK?

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary kindly and helpfully quoted from Mr. Daniel Hannan, who made it clear that he hoped that the Whips were not looking when he made his comments, because he knows that that is not the policy of the Conservative party. He has always had a strong view, which he is pursuing with others. Having spent the past few days watching one Labour Back Bencher after another going into the opposite Lobby from their Front Benchers, I shall take no lessons about how to deal with disagreement from that party.

Patrick McLoughlin: Has my right hon. Friend ever fought a general election campaign on a promise to withdraw from Europe? Can he remind us whether the Foreign Secretary has ever done that?

Michael Ancram: I have asked the Foreign Secretary about that before, and he has had the honesty to admit that in 1983 he, and most other Front Benchers, stood on a manifesto promise to withdraw from Europe. That was their position, but it is not our position now and has never been our position.
	We reject the motion. Its intention is clearto support the creation of a European constitution that is a step change away from the treaty agreements on which the European Union is presently based. It is a constitution, and no amount of play on words by the Foreign Secretary can disguise that fact. I cannot understand why the Government fell in love with this constitution so suddenly. The Prime Minister told us in 2000 that a constitution was not necessary. In our view, it is still not necessary, and the Foreign Secretary has never explained why it is necessary.

Graham Allen: It may surprise the right hon. Gentleman if I say that I am with him so far on his view that the document is a constitution, but the weakness of his case is that he proposes a referendum because his party is anti-European, rather than because it would be democratic. The anti-Europeanism came from his party before the call for a referendum, which flies in the face of those who feel that a referendum is a way to involve people more widely in the European project.

Michael Ancram: The whole point of a referendum is to allow people to have a choice. That is what we want to do. If we had a referendum, we would campaign on the policy in which we believe and others would campaign on their policies, but the important thing is to have a referendum.

Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend remind Labour Members that there are varying degrees of enthusiasm for the European Union on both sides of the House, just as there are varying degrees of enthusiasm for this constitution on both sides of the House? However, even Conservatives who have always stood steadfast behind the policy first enunciated by Sir Edward Heath believe, as do the Liberal Democrats, that this document should not be ratified until it has received the approval of the British people in a referendum.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which is reflected in our amendment. I will develop the points that he has raised later in my speech.
	The draft constitution represents a significant step change. It has been said:
	Until now, Europe was mainly associated with a common market. Now Europe will be more and more a place of citizenship. Now people will associate Europe with a constitution.
	Those are not my words, but those of Ana Palacio, the Spanish Foreign Minister in the New York Times on 15 June 2003. It has also been said that
	Anyone in Britain who claims the constitution will not change things is trying to sweeten the pill for those who don't want to see a bigger role for Europe. Eventually the Union . . . will become an institution and organisation in its own right.
	Again, those are not my words, but those of Italian Convention representative, Lamberto Dini.
	The draft constitution explicitly claims supremacy over national laws. In a clear move away from intergovernmentalism, it will set up a five-year presidency and get rid of the rotating presidencies that underline that intergovernmentalism. Against all the assurances given to the contrary, from the Prime Minister downwards, it will incorporate and give legal effect to the charter of fundamental rights. It will create a European Foreign Minister. It will dramatically extend qualified majority voting, thereby undermining and diminishing the ability of individual nations to determine their own futures. It will give the EU control of asylum and immigration. It will meddle in criminal trial procedures and increase EU powers over transport and energy policies. It will provide for further creeping integration, without recourse back to national parliaments. Economic co-ordination and a common foreign policy all hover in the wings. This is a constitution, and a fundamental constitution at that.

Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend has mentioned the increase in powers in the constitution. Can he think of reasons why the Government keep saying that the veto will stay on defence, foreign policy and taxation, whereas Mr. Prodi keeps saying that it will not?

Michael Ancram: The question that I asked the Foreign Secretary earlier was valid. We keep being told that the Government have red lines. We need to know whether, if those red lines are crossedand if the amendments proposed by the Leader of the House, which were not carried by the Convention, are not eventually agreedthey are prepared to veto the treaty? They do not get several vetoes: they get one, and they have to face up to that. If we had an answer to that question, it would provide the answer that my hon. Friend seeks.
	The Convention will also give the EU a single legal personality. In the last debate, we were told that that would not add to what the EU can currently do, but that is not Romano Prodi's view. On 21 June, he said:
	Europe can now play its role on the world stage thanks to its legal personality.
	Obviously in his view the EU has not been able to play that role without it. He has underlined the significance of the changes that will be made.
	The constitution is not a collection of insignificant changes designed to make an enlarged Europe more manageable. It sets out the attributes of the constitution of an independent state. It signals the end of the democratic rights of the currently sovereign nations to determine their own affairs and therefore of the people to direct their own destinies. And that is why we reject it.

George Osborne: My right hon. Friend's point is amply demonstrated by the very first line of the draft constitution.

Denis MacShane: It is Greek.

George Osborne: Indeed it is, and it is from Thucydides. It says:
	Our Constitution . . . is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
	It uses the word constitution and talks explicitly about the greatest numbermeaning the extension of majority voting and the elimination of the national veto.

Michael Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that, and I congratulate him on his swift translation of ancient Greek, which might be beyond most of the rest of us.
	The constitution could also affect our ability to determine our own security. The Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee last November that
	NATO has to be the superior alliance in terms of defence.
	Yet for all the references to the European security and defence policy, there is a glaring omission in the constitution, because it contains no guarantee of the primacy of NATO. We should remember that NATO is about guaranteeing national sovereignty, but this constitution is about eroding it.
	Our criticism of the constitution goes further. The task set for the Convention in Laeken was clearto bring Europe closer to its peoples. However, as the Austrian newspaper Die Presse stated:
	The aim is to bring the EU closer to citizens. The EU, its goals and decisions, were meant to be made simpler and more comprehensible. And none of that has happened.
	That is the truth about the outcome of this Convention. Rather than certainty, we havein so many areasfudged ambiguity. Article I-3(3) says that the Union
	shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion.
	What on earth does that mean, unless it is an ill-defined invitation for Brussels to expand its powers?
	The Foreign Secretary has boasted about national Parliaments' rights to vet European legislation yet, under the draft constitution, that vetting would allow the Commission still to ignore Parliaments' objections. How does that give power back to national Parliaments?
	Article I-10.2 states:
	Member States shall take all appropriate measures, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations flowing from the Constitution or resulting from the Union Institutions acts.
	Again, what on earth does that mean? On the face of it, the European Court of Justice will be endowed with enormous power. Article I-13 sets out shared competencies where the EU is to take the lead. Those open-ended provisions could allow a vast expansion of central EU power. Once again, that is centralisation, when we were told that the proposals were about returning powers to national Parliaments.
	Article I-14 is extraordinary. It deals with the co-ordination of employment and economic policies. Again, it contains wide-ranging and loose imperative provisions that are unclear in meaning but could authorise sweeping powers for Brussels. One extraordinary provision relates to foreign affairs. Article III-196.(2b) states:
	The Council shall act by qualified majority voting when adopting a position on a Union action and position, on a proposal which the Minister has put to it following a specific request to him from the European Council made at its own initiative or that of the Minister.
	If other Conservative Members can work out what on earth that means, they are doing a better job than I am. For instance, does it mean that any proposal made by the European Minister for Foreign Affairs on his initiative could, in the end, be subject to QMV?

Jack Straw: I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, in which case I am sure that he will correct me, but I thought I heard him say that the draft makes no reference to NATO. However, article I-40 on page 29 contains many references to NATO. It states:
	The policy of the Union . . . shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States and shall respect the obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, under the North Atlantic Treaty.

Michael Ancram: The Foreign Secretary should check what I said, as I was looking for something that reiterated the primacy of NATO, which is what is under threat. I do not find the extract that the right hon. Gentleman has read out convincing.

Jack Straw: The passage says that the article
	should not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States . . . which see their common defence realised
	in NATO. The article therefore does exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants it to do.

Michael Ancram: The article refers to compatibility. Later, it uses the phrase
	to be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
	That is the reference that it makes to NATO. I was looking for an assertion of primacy. That is not there, and it is a glaring omission.
	Then there are the escalator or passerelle clauses that allow the EU to expand its power or abolish QMV in a number of areas, without involving national Parliament. I heard what the Foreign Secretary had to say about opposing those proposals, but they remain in the draft for the moment. They are also integrationist.
	The magazine The Economist put it well when it called the constitution a blueprint for accelerated instability. In the end it will give power back not to people and national Parliaments, but to European judges. The proposed constitution is complex. Many of the dangers that Opposition Members see are in the small print and in the ambiguous language. It is a recipe for creeping integration.
	The proposals need to be examined very carefully. I should like them to be examined line by line on the Floor of the House. Once implemented, it will be too late to complain that the impact of the detail had not been foreseen. The constitution is not some Bill which, if the House gets it wrong, can be put right by amending legislation. Constitutions are built to last, and this one would be no exception. I suspect that I will be told that line-by-line examination would not be possible because of time constraints. In that respect, I sympathise with the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
	I am delighted to hear that a White Paper will be published. That is important, but it should not deal merely with the Government's objectives, as we have heard them on many occasions. I want it to contain the Government's detailed analysis of the constitution's implications and of its impact on the life of the nation. The Government owe it to the House to explain how they see the constitution affecting the lives of ordinary citizens in this country.
	The constitution must be considered by this House before the Government begin the IGC process of agreeing the treaty and the constitution. I should like them to restate the red lines, and the amendments over which they would be prepared to veto if they do not succeed in getting changes. In short, the Government must come clean with the British people.
	That brings me to our amendment.
	What is at stake is so new and big that it is right to hold a referendum.
	They are not my words, but those of the Danish Prime Minister.
	I am logically in favour of a referendum. It would be the only legitimate way.
	Those are not my words, butrather astonishinglythose of President Chirac on 20 June. Four members of the EU will have referendums. Another three are very likely to, and it is possible that yet another four might hold referendums. However, this country will not. As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) pointed out from a sedentary position during the Foreign Secretary's speech, we are the only country that has actually ruled out a referendum, and the Government should consider that position carefully.
	Yesterday, the Minister for Europe, whom I normally spend a lot of time castigating, suggested that we
	listened to the voters of this country.[Official Report, 8 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 895.]
	I agree. In an earlier incarnation, the Leader of the House announced on the radio that the people will decide. Those welcome comments do not apparently represent the formal position of the Government, however. As we have heard today, they continue to reject a referendum.

Denis MacShane: What I said yesterday was that the Conservatives should begin listening to the voters of this country if they want to win back support. Their anti-European policies will not help them in that regard.

Michael Ancram: On that basis, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would accept that he, too, should listen to the voters of this country. If he is so convinced that they would agree with him, let him press for a referendum so that they have the chance to do so.
	What have the Government got against letting the people decide? Why do not they trust the British people? What are they afraid of?
	Whatever the Foreign Secretary may say, the draft constitution prefaces a significant change in the nature of the European Union. It will have substantial constitutional significance, as the Leader of the House was frank enough to admit to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 1 April. Whatever casuistries the Foreign Secretary may use, this matter has never been put to the British people. It did not form part of the manifesto on which Labour won the last general election. This treaty will irreversibly alter the relationships between the EU and its member states. Without seeking their consent, it will alienate the sovereignty that belongs to the British people. It is unbelievable that the British people will not be allowed to have their say.
	In the House, we can and will argueas we are doingthe issues involved in the constitution, but the people should have the final say in a referendum. We should have the courage of our convictions and let the people decide. The House should make it clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) has pointed out, that there should be no ratification of a constitutional treaty without a referendum. That is the position of my colleagues and I ask the House to support our amendment.

Denzil Davies: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the right hon. Gentleman, may I remind the House that the 12-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches applies from now?

Denzil Davies: In an intervention, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) mentioned the Greek quotation from Thucydides, which is the first sentence of the preamble to the constitution. The translation is:
	Our Constitution . . . is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number.
	I was surprised to see that quotation, and I cannot really understand why it was there. Perhaps it was to put us in awe of the erudition and learning of those who drafted the constitution, or perhaps those wily Greeks slipped it in at night when nobody was looking.

Patrick Cormack: Like a Trojan horse.

Denzil Davies: Well, it seems to me that the quotation demonstrates much of the humbug and hypocrisy in the way that the European Union works. As Members know, Thucydides was referring to the democracy and constitution of the small city-state of Athens. From my memory of my studies of ancient history, the Athenian citizen could walk down the high street with a pebble in his hand and put it in a pot, or an urn. If he got enough pebbles in enough pots, he could change the law of Athens.
	The British citizen cannot change the laws of the EU, however. No matter how many pebbles he gathers together and no matter how many pots he fills, he cannot abolish the common agricultural policy, he cannot change the common fisheries policy and he cannot get rid of that dreadful bureaucratic tax, value added tax. Nor, indeed, can he change any of the laws in the 90,000 pages of the acquis communautaire or any of the other laws that will come about if the constitution is ratified.
	The public have realised that, because at the last European election, as I understand it, the pots were pretty empty of pebbles. The turnout was 29 per cent.the pot was less than a third full of pebblesand, as we all know and are much concerned about, at the last general election the pots were only a little more than half empty of pebbles: about 59 per cent. So British democracy cannot change an increasing number of laws that come from Brussels. We have to pass them here, usually as directives, and they stay as they are.
	As those hon. Members who have studied ancient history also know, Athens eventually became part of the country of Greece, which eventually became a rather tatty and down-at-heal province of imperial Rome. The European Union was created, as we know, by the countries of Europe, but the only way to create the Union is to transfer more and more power from the member states to the Union. As more and more power gets transferred from member states to the Unionwe have all seen this happen over the yearsthe countries gradually lose their power of self-government and become more and more like provinces of a quasi-imperial, centralised European state. As that process happens, the democracies of the individual members states are diminished gradually, treaty by treaty, line by line.
	As we all knowwe have been told before and we understand it very wellthat state has a flag, an anthem, citizens, a permanent bureaucracy in the Commission, a Parliament, a currency, a central bank and a supreme court. Of course, the supreme court is there to ensure that we all obey the laws of the EU. We have to obey them, but we cannot change them. We can no nothing to change EU laws, despite the fact that the supreme court is able to make us enforce them. Now, of course, we will have a constitution, which will apparently follow the flag, so we have a state.
	Every negotiation in respect of a treaty is very a battle between differing institutions. As far as I can see, the greatest changes in respect of the draft constitution are those to the status of the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers is a Community institution, but it is different from all the others. Its main purpose was to protect and look after the interests of member states, which were, in fact, the members of the Council of Ministers. It was not just a collegiate body; it was there to represent each individual state on its own. The Council of Ministers did not have much of a bureaucracy. I remember going to Brussels a very long time ago, and the Council of Ministers obviously did not need a bureaucracy because the bureaucracies were those of the permanent representatives of the member states. Over the years, we have gradually seen an increase in the bureaucracy of the Council of Ministers.
	Some time agothis is a mark of a separate personalitythe Council of Ministers acquired, I believe, a secretary-general. And with a secretary-general, something is bound to be an institution in its own right. Apparently, the secretary-general is also given the Gilbertian title of high representative. I do not know when he appears as high representative and when he appears as secretary-general, but that institution is now acquiring a personality of its own.
	The six-month presidency was a recognition that the Council of Ministers was there not as a free-standing institution, but to look after the separate states. That is why there is almost a peripatetic president every six months. We know that the six-month presidency will go. It seems that the president will be elected for two and a half years, but if he wants another two and a half years, he will get it. So we are probably embarking on a five-year presidency, and the president will speak unto presidents. The president will represent the union and will be accountable to the union and its constitution. The link between the Council of Ministersthe only body that represents member statesand the member states will be weakened, and with it the democracy of member states.
	Then there is the veto. Again, member states are allowed to use the veto in the Council of Ministers on certain policy matters, although they do not often do so. The veto has had a bad press, but it is the badge of the democracy of member states. In effect, it allows member states to represent their electorate. It can be obstructive and it can impede progress, but it ensures, as a last resort, that decisions in what should be a supranational bodyI do not know if it is; perhaps it has gone beyond thatare taken by consensus, and that if a member state's electorate feel strongly about an issue, the member state has the opportunity to assert its democracy in certain cases. The veto is going to go.

Wayne David: My right hon. Friend has placed a great deal of emphasis on the veto, but he must recognise that a veto for one country is a veto for all countries. Does he accept that it will make it extremely difficult, in an association of 25 member states, to get agreement on many policies?

Denzil Davies: It might be more difficult to get agreement on some policies, but there is a fundamental proposition that we should operate on the basis of the best possible democracy. The veto exists to protect Poland and other countriesto protect France, which wants to safeguard its cultural interestsand to protect the democracy of the individual state. If we are concerned about democracy, it is a better way to proceed.
	Under the treaty of Nice, 30 or so vetoes went. The Foreign Secretary said that they were trivial. Perhaps some of them were, but some were not. I have tried to count the number of vetoes that will go under the new constitution. I have counted 40some people have counted up to 80, but I shall stay at 40. Will we be told that they are trivial, too, and that they can be done away with? Alternatively, are some trivial, and some not?

Jack Straw: I do not believe that I have used the word trivial in any of these debates.

Denzil Davies: Perhaps my right hon. Friend did not use the word trivial, but he made it clear that many, if not all, of the 30 or so vetoes under the treaty of Nice were really not important at all, and could be cast aside. If he wants to look at the record, we will do that. Is he now saying that the 40 or however many vetoes that are to be abolished are of no consequence? Alternatively, is there some other reason why they can be done away with?
	Even if this draft constitution is ratified, I do not believe that it will be the treaty to end all treatiesthere will be one, two or three more treaties before the process is completed. The Convention on the constitution provides a foundation for a centralised criminal justice system. Another treaty will probably be needed to complete that task. It establishes the basis of a common foreign and defence policy, and another treaty will be needed to finish that task.
	As far as the vetoes are concerned, the veto on taxation will have to go. With the growth and stability pact in tatters, there will be economic pressure, and calls will be made for fiscal policy to be controlled from the centre, just as monetary policy is controlled now.
	Once that process is complete, and there is a unified criminal justice system, a common foreign and defence policy, a single currency and fiscal policy controlled from the centre, we are pretty far down the road of becoming a province, not a country.
	Finally, I have one request to make of my right hon. Friend. As we embark on these debates, could he do his best to remove Thucydides' name from the cover of the document, as he does not really deserve it?

Menzies Campbell: Like others, I was much intrigued by the demonstration of classical scholarship that we have just heard from the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies). I do not intend to follow him all the way down that road, but let me remind him that the Athenian democracy was based on slavery. Those who had the right to throw the pebble to demonstrate their democratic rights were a very small proportion of the population of Athens and Greece.
	The right hon. Gentleman suggested that the veto is an illustration of democracy, but I rather believe that much more often it is an illustration of the self-interest of a particular country that is determined not to allow itself to be prejudiced in certain matters that it regards as important.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: Not for the moment.
	On the question of whether a country ceases to be a country, Scotland entered into a Union of the Crowns and then a Union of the Parliaments, and I do not think that anyone could argue that, in spite of being in a currency union for all those years, Scotland ever ceased to be a country. Indeed, the fact that it never ceased to be a country is reflected in the new constitutional settlement that has had to be agreed for Scotland and Wales.

Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not acknowledge that self-interest is a defining characteristic of national independence?

Menzies Campbell: That may well be so, but I am not sure that it is necessarily an illustration of the application of the democratic principle.
	Others have rightly paid tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and to the United Kingdom members of the Convention. Although I do not always agree with what the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) writes or says, it would only be right and proper to say that he has displayed a very remarkable degree of independence and, some might sayI certainly wouldoriginal thought about these matters. He certainly deserves to be recognised.
	There is a recurring joke in the circles of the Democratic party in the United States. It asks, Why is it that the convention of the Democratic party to pick a presidential candidate should last for four days when only two days would be sufficient? To which the answer is, Well, after two days everything has been said, but not everyone has said it. As we go over the same ground time after time on this issue, there is a sense that everything has been said but not everyone has said it. That is why I welcome, in particular, the announcement made on Monday in the other place, and confirmed today by the Foreign Secretary, that a White Paper will set out the Government's objectives for the intergovernmental conference.
	With all due respect to the Foreign Secretary, today's debate is taking place in a vacuum, without a clear indication of what the Government's objectives are likely to be. That also points to the fact that, if a White Paper is to be published in advance of the IGC, which is scheduled to start in October, space must inevitably be made in the parliamentary timetable when we come back in September for consideration of that White Paper. It would be unfortunate were the IGC to commence and were discussion in the House of the White Paper to begin after the commencement of the IGC.

Graham Allen: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he wanted to allow time for everyone to say what has already been said, but surely a debate on the Floor of the House at that time would be less useful than a debate in, let us say, the European Scrutiny Committee or another body established to examine the issue in more detail. Hearing the same speeches fromwith great respect to him and those who have already spokenthe same people will not progress the matter much further and will not allow people outside the House to participate.

Menzies Campbell: I have great deal of sympathy for the motion that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have tabled, and I shall say a little more about it shortly. It is supported by Members of all parties. However, we should surely debate White Papers on the Floor of the House of Commons, because it is here that we are able to hold the Government to account for their policy rather than perhaps for the detail. That is why I very much hope that, when we return in September, we will have the opportunity to debate a White Paper that sets out clearly the Government's objectives in relation to the IGC. That will allow the House the opportunity to pass judgment on those objectives.

William Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I am sorry but I must make progress. I might give way later.
	To some extent, the vacuum in which we are conducting this debate is illustrated by the Government motion. When one examines it carefully, one realises that it is offensive only to the most Eurosceptic. It sets out a series of propositions that I, at least, regard as largely unexceptionable. Unfortunately, as was reflected again in the Foreign Secretary's speech, there is as yet no recognition of the need for a referendum of the British people if what is proposed at the end of the process on which we are about to embark constitutes significant constitutional change. Three amendments to the Government's motiontwo stand in the name of the leaders of specific political parties and the other was tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenheadcall for a referendum and are supported by hon. Members of all parties in the House. Only the Government have set themselves against a referendum.
	Let me repeat a test that I have set out previously. If the provisions that the Government eventually bring before the House propose any major shift of control, any transfer of significant powers from member states to European institutions, or any alteration to the existing balance between member states and those institutions, a referendum would be necessary. I do not understand how the current contents of the Convention document can be described as tidying up.

William Cash: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: This is an especially important part of what I want to say. I would like to finish it and then I shall give way.
	A referendum should be inevitable if the final proposals that the Government bring to the House resemble the Convention draft that we are considering today. I find it difficult to conceive of circumstances in which a referendum would not be necessary if the final proposals indeed resemble that draft.

William Cash: On the White Paper, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why he is confining himself to the Government's objectives? If a referendum were to be based on proper information, would it not be much better to have a White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of the treaty, which would be similar to the one published by the Labour Government in 1967? When we reach that point, the British people may have a proper debate.

Menzies Campbell: The hon. Gentleman is getting ahead of himself. The White Paper that I envisage, and which the Government have promised, will relate to the IGC. There might well be scope for a White Paper of the kind that he describes after the process has been completed and a set of proposals has been brought before the House of Commons. In those circumstances, the set of proposals will almost inevitably have to be put before the British people and, if so, a document such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred and with which those of us who remember the 1975 referendum are familiar would be entirely appropriateindeed, I suspect that it would be obligatory.
	Without endeavouring to be exhaustive, let me outline the type of issues that raise constitutional implications. First, the provisions for the charter of fundamental rights have such implications. They mirror provisions relating to the European convention on human rights and, indeed, supplement them. However, the United Kingdom was always a signatory to that convention. The Labour Government introduced legislation not to allow us to join the convention but to allow convention rights to be pursued and vindicated in our domestic courts so that a litigant need not have recourse to Strasbourg. Given that such a measure was part of the 1997 manifesto on which the Labour party was elected, the Government had a mandate to repatriate the right to seek redress under the convention to the United Kingdom's domestic courts. However, that measure is in a different category from the proposal for the charter of fundamental rights.
	Secondly, I have several reservations about the passerelle clause, which has already been mentioned. However, whatever one thinks about it, it would allow the Union to determine by unanimity that it may move toward using majority voting for specific additional matters. It is difficult to argue that that would not have constitutional implications.
	The third issue in my illustrative yet not exhaustive list is the proposal for a permanent presidency of the Council. Whatever view one takes of the merits of such a proposalthere are merits to argue in its favourit necessarily has constitutional implications. To that extent, I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelli, not only for the reasons that he gave, but because it would reduce the influence that individual states have on the EU's agenda during the six-month presidency for which they are eligible.
	The interesting question is whether any of the proposals taken singly would be enough to trigger a referendum. One could argue not, but we must consider their cumulative effect, and that has persuaded me of the inevitability of a referendum. That would be consistent with decisions taken by my party in 1993, when we debated a new clause tabled by Bryan Gould in relation to the Maastricht treaty, and again in 1995, when on a Liberal Democrat Opposition day we introduced and passed a motion which said that a material change in the relationship between the UK and the EU should be ratified and endorsed by a referendum. I also pray in aid the fact that the Liberal Democrats, under the leadership of Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, were the first to say that joining the single European currency raised issues of economic, political and constitutional significance which required a referendum.

John Bercow: Given that whatever else might be said about the Government, they are not renowned for their respect for precedent or tradition. Notwithstanding the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attraction to the idea of a European constitution, does he agree that the Government are so opposed to a referendum because they are scared that they will lose it?

Menzies Campbell: It is dangerous to attribute base motives to individuals, parties or Governments. The Government should answer for themselves on that matter. Those of us who support the European idealI do not shrink from putting it in those termsshould have the confidence to argue it, not just in the Chamber, but in the country. The point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) about the need to reconnect the individual voter with the EU is valid. There is no better way of effecting that reconnection than by arguing the merits of the case and inviting people to pass judgment on those merits by way of a vote.

Ian Davidson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: No, I apologise, but I want to make progress.
	We have to accept that the IGC will not in all likelihood produce final proposals that in all material respects coincide with the views of all hon. Members. But the process on which we are embarking has an IGC, a treaty and a process of ratification in the House. That treaty has to be signed by all 25 members. Any one of them will have the power of veto.
	The Foreign Secretary and I are as one on the view that the veto has to be retained in foreign policy, defence and taxation. I took the opportunity to look again at article I-40.2. The apprehensions of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)he has apologised for his absence; he has another pressing obligationare not well founded. The second half of paragraph 2 contains three elements of the common defence policy. The first is that it
	shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.
	The second is that it
	shall respect obligations of certain Member States, which see their common defence realised in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
	The third is that it
	shall be compatible with the common security and defence policy established within that framework.
	So the three elements are prejudice, respect and compatibility. If we give those words their normal and natural meaning, it is difficult to argue that that article, at face value, does not provide for the primacy of NATO in such matters.
	The reason why I am sympathetic to the Foreign Secretary and his views on foreign policy, defence and taxation is, as I have said before in the House, that I think that those are quintessentially the responsibility of a national Parliament such as our own. They are features of the constitutional settlement that we have recently arrived at in the United Kingdom. We have not given away those responsibilities to devolved Parliaments or Assemblies; they have been maintained here in this Parliament because we regard them as quintessentially ours.
	The Foreign Secretary was right when he hinted at the fact that the existing system of treaties is complicated and opaque. The purpose of the constitution must surely be to set down and define the role and powers of institutions of the European Union. It is of course true that there could be enlargement without these provisions being enacted, but it would be a curious European Union which emerged as a result, and one that would be all the more likely to be subject to paralysis and sclerosis.
	In spite of the rather powerful argument about other treaties made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli, there is a strong case to be made for an end to the endless tinkering with the EU's constitutional arrangements. It is little wonder that public incomprehension has been followed by public disinterest and a sense of disconnection. This process, once completed, must surely lead to a period of constitutional calm for the foreseeable future, if not for the 50 years rather grandly envisaged by Giscard d'Estaing; that would be in the interests of the EU, its member states and indeed its citizens. We cannot conduct the affairs of the EU as if we are engaged in a perpetual Maoist cultural revolution or, as the Foreign Secretary indicated, a culture of crisis characterised on some occasions by last minute compromise against a background of physical exhaustion and horse trading.
	Subsidiarity and proportionality are particularly referred to in annexe 2 to the treaty. On the last occasion on which we debated these matters, I had an exchange with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am sure that he has read the annexe, but others who have not would be well advised to take some account of it. It sets out in letterI shall come to the question of spirit in a momenta comprehensive set of principles by which subsidiarity and proportionality are to be advanced. It says that decisions are to be
	taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union
	and that there has to be
	respect for the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.
	There must be consultation and the involvement of national Parliaments; proposals must be justified by reference to those principles; and the Commission can be required to review any proposal against those principles. The Court of Justice
	shall have jurisdiction to hear actions on grounds of infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.
	I suspect, or at least hope, that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that it is not just the provisions and the language in which they are couched which matter; it is the spirit with which they are enforced. I shall be anxious to hear from the Government in their White Paper precisely what they propose to ensure that that spirit, which the words seem to embrace, will be influential and all-pervasive in the EU. I also want the Government to consider other measures to strengthen the application of these principles. Instead of the amber light for state Parliaments, as it has come to be called, why not have a red light if, say, two thirds of the Parliaments of the EU enter an objection? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) sought to advance that proposal in the Convention, and it seems to me that it is a powerful idea that is worth serious consideration.
	I have another proposition. Why should there not be an independent official with the responsibility to audit all existing and proposed legislation to see whether it conforms to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality? Such an official should have the right to initiate action for breaches of the principles before the Court, as set out in annexe 2. That would go a long way towards helping to restore the connection between the citizens of the EU and the EU itself.
	Whatever the objectives or motives of others in seeking a referendum, I have no doubt that it is in the United Kingdom's best interest to be at the heart of Europe, which is why I support UK membership of the single currency. I believe in the value of a common foreign and security policy based on the principle of consensus. I am seeking a referendum on the proposals for a constitution because I wish them to have both the political and constitutional endorsement of the British people. I am wholly opposed to any question of UK withdrawal or associate status. I am confident about making the case for continued membership, and I do not understand why the Government do not share that confidence.

Jimmy Hood: First, may I add my congratulations to those already given to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) on their outstanding work in the past year or so on the Convention? I am sure that they thought that it was a good idea when they put themselves forward for the job, but they must have felt differently many times when travelling backwards and forwards to Brussels. The House should nevertheless record its appreciation of the work that they have both done, along with that of their two substitutes in the other place.
	I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks about the reports produced by the European Scrutiny Committee and for his letter offering to discuss how the Committee can get involved in the work of the intergovernmental conference. I am sure that the Committee will respond to the letter very soon, but may I extend an informal invitation to him? As we have said before, we would be delighted if he gave evidence to the Committee, as that would be a good start to the process.
	I enjoyed the Foreign Secretary's contribution to our debate, and did not agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who described it as a rant. In fairness, it was an enjoyable, informative anddare I say?flamboyant contribution. If we can have the debates on Europe that he recommended, perhaps we will get greater participation on European issues in the House. When listening to Members on both sides of the House putting both sides of the argument, I realised how much I should appreciate being Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I enjoy quasi-independence because I can criticise both sides without being thought offensive, and have managed to do so for the 11 years since I first became Chairman. I enjoy my role, and I appreciate it all the more when it allows me to participate in events such as tonight's debate.
	The European Scrutiny Committee has taken a close interest in the Convention. We held an inquiry and published a major report last year on democracy and accountability in the EU and the role of national Parliaments. We have recently published two reportson proposals for national Parliaments, and on criminal justiceand they are cited as relevant documents on the Order Paper. We have also participated fully in the Standing Committee on the Convention. That Committee was an excellent innovation, but it would have been better if more Members had participated. It was attended by members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the European Scrutiny Committee, as well as by Members of the House of Lords. None the less, I would welcome the sort of interest that is displayed on the Floor of the House. When I see a lot of names attached to amendments, I think that it would be good if those hon. Members came to Standing Committees dealing with the same subjects. That is a plug for European Standing Committees A, B and C which do outstanding work in this place, but which very few hon. Members attend. More should involve themselves in that way.
	The role of national Parliaments is at the heart of everything that the European Scrutiny Committee does. That theme was found in the Laeken declaration, which deals with better democratic scrutiny and transparency. I welcome the role in subsidiarity of the proposed early warning system, which is of symbolic importance, as for the first time national Parliaments will be fully involved in the European Union's legislative process. However, I need to put a marker down: I am not convinced that the good intention will work in practice. I welcomed the observations that the Prime Minister made in the Liaison Committee this week when I asked him about the issue. I also applaud the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, who suggested a red-card mechanism and an extension to cover the principle of proportionality.

Angus Robertson: I intervene on my Committee Chairman with some trepidation. He mentioned the early warning system, which I agree is very important. Is he not slightly concerned that the Government have not confirmed how they envisage the devolved Administrations and Parliaments being involved in that process? After all, most of the sovereignty that we share with the European Union, for example, is devolved within the UK and is not a matter for this place to decide.

Jimmy Hood: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, which I have discussed on a number of occasions. Indeed, I raised it with the Prime Minister this week in the Liaison Committee.
	At long last, we have in the draft treaty an important provision ensuring that the Council will meet in public when it is legislating. We have argued for years for such an arrangement. I understand that the European Union is one of only two legislators that meet and legislate in private. The other is North Korea, so I welcome that provision.

Robert Walter: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is congratulating the Convention on the fact that the Council will meet in public. Would he also be in favour of his Committee sitting in public?

Jimmy Hood: I remember that the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Committee for a few weeks. Last year, we published a report in which we accepted the need to be more open and transparent. We are committed to considering that issue and keen to conduct more of our business in public. The matter is being looked at as we speak.
	The single change to which I am referring will make it easier for national Parliaments to hold Ministers to account, although the detail will have to be watched very carefully. I have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for, I think, 16 years. During that time, Ministers from Governments of both persuasions have told us that they think that something will happen in the Council, but the result has not necessarily followed. We found out that we did not have any way of checking how the Minister was voting. I am sure that a proper procedure was being followed in respect of this House, as there will always be hon. Members who represent us in Europe. However, I do not know whether that was the case for everyone involved, as the votes were made in secret. The proposal could be improved by the inclusion of some form of written record of what is done. We would welcome the establishment of a European Union Hansard record of the Council meetings.
	We also need to ensure that the Council takes national Parliaments' scrutiny reserves seriouslyfor example, by requiring Councils to give reasons for overriding them. A more orderly legislative process with less last-minute drafting would help, including proper intervals between stagesfor example, a minimum of 10 days between COREPER meetings and Council. More co-operation between subject and departmental committees would be worthwhile, including on matters such as defence. Some Convention proposals, however, could cause problems for national Parliaments, especially the extension of qualified majority voting and co-decision. The latter, especially at its conciliation stage, needs to be much more transparent. I fear that that proposal has not been thought through; the Convention should have discussed it further before suggesting the extension of such an opaque system.
	On institutional reform, the Convention seems to have been more interested in bargaining between institutions than in seeking to improve European Union democracy and accountability, but some important changes have been made. I welcome the end of the rotating presidency and the creation of a longer-term President of the Council.
	Changes to the Commission deserve more attention than they have received. The intention to reduce the number of Commissioners to 15, with equal rotation, would mean that the UK would not always have a Commissioner. It is also proposed that the Commission President would choose each country's Commissioner from a shortlist of three. The IGC will want to consider that.

William Cash: In relation to the recent report of the European Scrutiny Committee, on which we both serve, does the hon. Gentleman agree, given that we concluded that the harmonisation of criminal law should be rejected, that if it were not rejected we would have to veto the treaty?

Jimmy Hood: I do not want to pre-empt anything that goes off in the IGC. Given the Prime Minister's answers when we questioned him on those matters in the Liaison Committee, I am sure that the Government intend to use their veto to ensure that that does not happen.
	Further consideration should be given to the significant reduction in the threshold for qualified majority voting by removing one of the three elements agreed in Niceweighted votes. QMV will need to be defended in some areasfor example, criminal justice, taxation and the common foreign security policy.
	I must flag up my deep concern at the suggestions that there could be simpler ways of amending the treaties, or parts of them, without needing ratification in each country; that the new treaty could come into force when, say, 80 per cent. of countries have ratified; or that countries that do not ratify the new treaty will be regarded as having left the European Union. That is the route to the federal superstate of which many people are frightened, and which most of us do not believe could happen. It must be kicked into touch when the IGC meets.
	I want to say a few words about criminal justice. The European Scrutiny Committee was particularly worried by the radical proposals agreed by the Convention working group on the basis of a very narrow range of evidence. On criminal procedures, the aim should be to limit harmonisation to matters that facilitate recognition of foreign judgments, rather than to give the European Union free rein over the whole of criminal procedure. Harmonisation would be limited to matters such as admissibility of evidence and the rights of individuals and victims, as in article III-166(2). Those categories are very broad, since virtually anything may concern the rights of individuals. Unanimity is therefore important: otherwise, we will not know where this is leading and minorities could be overridden.
	It is especially unnecessary for the rules of evidence to be the same in all member states. Some do not have jury trial and others have different forms of it. It may not be fair to put before a jury what is fair to put before a judge. For example, if a trial is fair in country A, the judgment can be recognised and enforced in country B, even though the rules in the latter might be different. That should be examined.

Richard Bacon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) has had his time allocation.

William Hague: I am grateful for the chance to take part in the debate. Never let it be said that debates in the House of Commons do not produce useful and constructive ideas. It is obvious from the speeches that have been made so far that it would be advisable to remove Thucydides from the preamble to the document. The reference means a slave state to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), and it reminds the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and I that Athenian democracy was a direct democracy in which every citizen had a vote. Any document that cites Thucydides in its preamble naturally requires a referendum. If the Government want to avoid that implication, they should remove the reference.
	The debate has produced some good ideas. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife will be surprised that I agreed with many aspects of his speech. He suggested that the Government should fight for the inclusion of a two-thirds blocking power for Parliaments of the European Union. I note that the Minister for Europe said, Good idea sotto voce at that point. I hope that the suggestion will be added to the list of matters that the Government will negotiate.

Denis MacShane: indicated assent.

William Hague: The Minister nods, so it is clearly on the record.

Denis MacShane: indicated dissent.

William Hague: Now he is dissenting. We have had a U-turn in a matter not of days, but seconds. However, he said that it was a good idea and we shall hold the Government to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion is excellent.
	Another example of common ground among the speakers is the realisation that there is a decline in faith in politics, political institutions and politicians in this country. I know that especially well after the last general election, when there was a turnout of 59 per cent. At the last European elections, the turnout was less than 25 per cent. The Government agreed with the analysis that we have to give people faith in politics and political institutions. Their first annual report in 1997, in the days when they published annual reports with a great fanfare rather than smuggling them out in written answers, as they do nowadays, states:
	The Government wants to . . . make government more . . . responsive and accountable . . . to bring politics closer to the people . . . to restore the public's faith in the political process.
	When we are presented with a proposal such as the constitutionit is a constitutionwhich conflicts with that, we should be ready to criticise it, if necessary to say no, and to give the people of the country a vote on it.
	The Convention takes decision making further away from the people of this country. The compromise that has been reached gives all the institutions of the European Union more power. It will widen the ambit of the Commission, extend the authority of the Council of Ministers by providing an executive president and more qualified majority voting, and give greater co-decision powers to the European Parliament. However, politics is a zero-sum game, as Conservative Members well know. Holding power is a zero-sum game. If we give more power to institutions, national Parliaments lose power and the citizens of each nation will be increasingly divorced from the political decisions that are made in their name.
	The Government mention bottom lines, red lines and negotiating positions, but they are soon surrendered. The Foreign Secretary set a few today. However, it is not long since the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), when he was in the Foreign Office, said that there was no way that the fundamental charter of rights would ever be incorporated in law. He said that it would be like the Beano:
	People will be able to bring it up in the European Court of Justice just as if it was the Beano.
	If that is the case, Dennis the Menace and Roger the Dodger will be starring in the European Court of Justice very soon, because the fundamental charter of rights will be there in the treaty, in the constitution. The Foreign Secretary is reduced to talking about safeguards against it now, rather than never having it there, which was the position only three years ago.
	The case for the people to have their say on such dramatic change is a strong one. It is extraordinary to watch the Government's contortions in trying to deny the case for a referendum. The first position was: this is not important enough for a referendum. The right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain), now the Leader of the House, said that it would be more of a tidying-up exercise.

Peter Hain: indicated dissent.

William Hague: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he then went on the Jeremy Vine Show to say that it was three quarters a tidying-up exercise.

Peter Hain: indicated assent.

William Hague: So he did say that most of it was a tidying up exercise. Therefore, it was not really important enough to have a referendum on it. That, of course, was blown out of the water by the huge excitement with which the document was greeted in many of the other countries of Europe. The German Foreign Minister said that it was
	the most important treaty since the foundation of the European Economic Community.
	The French Foreign Minister said that it was a new political age. The Spanish Foreign Minister said that it was
	a legal revolution, with no precedent.
	The Danish Prime Minister said that it was
	so new and large a document that it would be right to hold a referendum on it.

Denis MacShane: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

William Hague: I will give way to the Minister so that he can confirm the point that I asked him about earlier.

Denis MacShane: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the President of the Commission, Mr. Prodi, said that when he read the document he burst into tears, so anti-communautaire was it?

William Hague: Despite that cheering news, it nevertheless remains the case that the vast majority of the Governments of Europe think that it is a dramatic advance for the integration of the EU, which is something that they support, honestly and openly. It is our Government who are prepared to sign up to that without admitting their intellectual inconsistency. But that inconsistency is truly on display.

Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend has been deceived, albeit unwittingly. Prodi burst into tears because he thought that Berlusconi could become President of the EU.

William Hague: Well he is the President of the EU, so, yes, lots of tears have been shed.
	Nevertheless, let us return to the consistency or otherwise of the Government's arguments against a referendum. Shortly after it was all a tidying-up exercise, just last week the Prime Minister made a speech in which he said:
	I am urged to say that Britain should have a referendum on the European Convention
	but
	it would be a gross and irresponsible betrayal of the true British national interest.
	The language of tidying-up exercise and
	gross and irresponsible betrayal of...national interest
	do not easily sit together. When I was a teenager, my mother often told me that I had to tidy up, but she never said that it was a gross and irresponsible betrayal of our family's interests if I did not do so. One smells an inconsistency in the use of language that betrays the Government's uncertainty about how to deal with this point. We understand that Alastair Campbell has been too busy to think up the proper argument with which to deal with the referendum case, but the Government do need to do better.
	Much attention was given to the Prime Minister's appearance at the Liaison Committee yesterday on many other subjects, but it is worth looking at all the arguments at which he clutched on the referendum issue when he was asked about it. First of all he stuck to the new notion, not that it is unimportant but that it is too important to have a referendum on it. He said:
	its very complexity means that parliamentary scrutiny is the right way to debate this.
	The idea that the Prime Minister believes that parliamentary scrutiny is the right way to examine anything, strikes many of us in the House as a little short of hilarious. Here we are sitting through July passing large quantities of legislation with dozens of clauses that are not debated at all, and the Prime Minister says that complexity requires parliamentary scrutiny of the matter.
	In any case, since when has complexity been an argument against allowing people a democratic decision? The Good Friday agreement was complex. My right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) knows that full well. Yet we had a referendum on it for the people of Northern Ireland. The Irish and the Danes are to have a referendum. Is there something about this that they can get their minds around that the British voter cannot because it is so complex? This is a patronising attitude.
	Then the Prime Minister adopted a different approach. Ceasing to argue that it was unimportant or that it was too important, he fell back on the argument that it has the wrong sort of importance. He said that we should[Interruption.] I will not give way again, because I now know how the timing works for Back-Bench speeches.
	The Prime Minister said that we should follow the traditions of this country. When this Prime Minister advocates following the traditions of this country, we should be alarmed. I must have debated with him a couple of hundred times across the Dispatch Box, and I cannot recallalthough I have not checkedhis ever defending any proposition on the ground that it was in line with the traditions of this country; that does not normally enter his head. We have a Prime Minister who is happy to cast aside the post of Lord Chancellora post that has existed for 1,400 yearswithout even thinking about what would happen the next day. He emasculated the House of Lords without having the faintest clue what he would put in its place.
	On taking office, the Prime Minister switched around the House's timings and procedures like a child playing with a train setand now he talks about defending the traditions of this country. This cannot be taken seriously. He also said:
	The proper time to have a referendum . . . is when the basic constitutional method of governance is being changed.
	Is the basic constitutional method of governance at stake here? I would say that it is, because many more decisions will be taken without consulting this Parliament or the people of this country. How can the Prime Minister and the Government argue that the creation of a President of the European Union and of a Foreign Minister, the extension of qualified majority voting even into criminal justice, the change in the Commission's role and the expansion of its ambit do not amount to a change in constitutional governance? How can they argue that, given that the right of people in Hartlepool to vote for someone dressed up as a monkey to be their mayor apparently does constitute such a change, and that they had a referendum on that issue?
	The Government's intellectual inconsistency on this issue has now been exposed. The fact that members of all parties in this House have signed up to amendments to today's motion that call for a referendum shows the extent to which the Government have lost that argument. It is time for them to acknowledge the fact; otherwise, their use of referendums in recent years will be exposed as a political device, rather than a constitutional innovation. And it will be absolutely clear that they are happy to have a referendum when they think that they can win, but not happy to have one when they think that they cannot win.
	I therefore believe it very important to have that referendum, but I also believe it very important for us to take the opportunity to criticise, or if necessary to say no to, the proposed treaty. There is no need for the extension of the EU's powers into criminal justice. I have never met a constituent who said that the one thing wrong with criminal justice in this country is that it is not like the Belgian criminal justice system. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has made a similar point before. There is no need to change that system, or for the European Union to take over those powers; yet that is what is being proposed.
	At the moment, people can tell their Member of Parliament that because they voted for a particular measure, or because they did not, they can vote them out, or in. They can say that because they approve of what the Home Secretary has done in criminal justice, or because they do not, they can vote him out, or in. However, they will increasingly find that decisions have been taken in their name that were proposed by commissioners whom they had no role in appointing, that were approved by a Council of Ministers in which their country was simply outvoted, and were approved in a European Parliament by parties of which those electors have never even heard. That represents a divorce between the voterthe participant in democracyand the democratic process and our political institutions. That matters so much to this country, which has evolved such an effective parliamentary democracy over time, that we should have the confidence to say no, if necessary. And we should have a Government with the courage and consistency to give people the chance to do so.

John Cryer: I rise to speak in favour of a referendum on the new European constitution and against the Government motion, although I do not do so lightly. However, we are going to see real shifts in political power, the draining of accountability and profound constitutional changes, which will have significant implications for this country.
	There are three questions that have to be asked about the European constitution and the Convention that gave rise to it. The first is: was the process that gave rise to the constitution transparent, democratic and accountable? I have to say, without implying any criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) or the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), that that process did not happen. It was not democratic; it was not accountable; and it certainly was not clear.
	The second question is whether the proposals mean profound constitutional change to the British and other west European constitutions, and the answer is yes. The answer to the third questionif the answer to the previous question is yes, the third question is whether there should be a referendum on the constitutionis automatically yes. I am not a great supporter of referendums for any subject that happens to come along, because that would start to undermine parliamentary democracy and representative democracy. However, when there are real, profound and fundamental constitutional changes, which clearly affect the power of votes cast at the ballot box and votes cast in this place on behalf of the 60,000 or 70,000 electors who send us here, there must be a referendum to put the issue to the people.
	Was the process that gave rise to the constitution democratic and accountable? The fact is that it was not. The praesidium, which was largely stuffed with Euro-fanatics, met in private and decided the agenda on a week-by-week or day-by-day basis. It decided what was being debated and discussed, and no votes were taken. Representations were made from outside public bodies, but from everything that I have read about the processes of the Convention, I know that many of those bodies had a peculiarly close relationship with the EU.
	I would like to ask a question, though my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Benchor anyone elsemay not know the answer. How many of the bodies making representationslargely of a Euro-fanatic varietyhad received funding from the EU? I would be fascinated to know the answer, and my guess is that quite a lot of them received EU funding in one way or another. They then went along to the Convention, made representations that were largely in favour of integration, handing more power over to the EU, merging the three pillars of the European community into one and extending the European Court of Justice. Of course they had a vested interest in making those sort of representations because they were financed by the EU. I shall give three examples of how the Convention and constitution will radically change representative democracy in this country. Article 10.1 states clearly:
	The Constitution and law adopted by the Union's Institutions . . . shall have primacy over the law of member states.
	That is absolutely clear. European law will have primacy over member states.

Denis MacShane: Is my hon. Friend aware that that has been the case since 1957? That language is used in every single treaty since 1957. If we want a common trade policy, someone has to tell member states what the trading policy should be. There is nothing new in this.

John Cryer: That may be so, but the big difference is that the three pillars of the European Community are being merged into one. The two intergovernmental pillars are being collapsed into the pillar that supports the European Community, which means that the European Court of Justice will have massively enhanced powers of jurisdiction[Interruption.] It will. That is how it works. If we examine the history of the European Court of Justice, its interventions and its decisions about western Europe, we find that it clearly always comes down on the side of the Euro-fanaticsin favour of more integration and greater powers going to the EU. Health is a good example. A case was taken to the European Court of Justice. It was previously thought that EU law did not affect health, but the European Court of Justice ruled that health was a service, that services can be traded, and that health therefore fell under the jurisdiction and law of the EU.

Angela Browning: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. Does he agree that in the past the ECJ has based its decisions on case law only, but in future they will be based on the constitution? That is a new concept entirely, giving the constitution primacy over the rule of law.

John Cryer: That is true, and in line with what I was saying.
	The second example that I wanted to give was from article 14, which entails the compulsory co-ordination of economic policy. My bet is that we will be told that that has nothing to do with the ECJ and that it is only warm words, but that we will see cases taken before the ECJ which will, in all probability, rule in favour of greater EU integration. The third example comes from later in the document. It states:
	The member states shall work together to enhance and develop their mutual political solidarity . . . and . . . refrain from any action which is contrary to the interests of the Union or likely to impair its effectiveness as a cohesive force in international relations.
	That is an oath of allegiance on foreign policy, and I have already given the example of the oath of allegiance on economic policy. Those will have major implications. Collapsing those three pillars into one will give massively enhanced powers to the ECJ.
	The history of the ECJ is of decisions in favour of the European Community, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Unionevery time. We also have the charter of fundamental rights, and I remember when it was published. We were told that it would be virtually meaningless. I remember that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) said that it would have as much meaning as The Beano. It is a good job that my hon. Friend did not use Viz as an example, because then we would have to watch out for Finbar Saunders and his double entendres in the Convention in the future.

John Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if proceedings are taken on the charter, we will have almost perpetual litigation and the prospect of a conflict between the charter and the ECJ?

John Cryer: The conflict will probably be between the charter of fundamental rights and the ECHR, and that has already been pointed out in the Council of Europe. It is clear that conflicts will arise between the European convention on human rights, the charter of fundamental rights and the ECJ. Interestingly, the ECJ has a tendency to refer the odd human rights case that it receives to the European Court of Human Rights, because the ECJ has no real competence in such matters. I suspect that such cases will now stay with the ECJ and it will rule in a way that we can all predict.
	If we adopt the constitution without holding a plebiscite so that people have the right to have a say on the future of the Convention, I predict that the reaction will be nationalism. If people in western Europeand for that matter in central Europe and eastern Europehave the constitution and the single currency shoved down their throats, without a full national debate and vote, we will see a backlash, and it will be nationalism. It might not happen tomorrow, or even the day after, but at some point that will be the reaction. That is my real fear.
	We have seen increasing numbers of people refusing to vote in elections, in this country and in many other western European countries. I suspect that it is because so many people feel that they are losing control of their destiny. That is happening in all sorts of ways, and I do not blame only the European Union. If we sign up to the constitution, which will shift power and mean real constitutional change, without giving people the right to have a say, increasing numbers of them will depart from the mainstream and refuse to vote in general elections.
	Given all the changes that are happeningthe constitution, the euro, the stripping away of power over monetary policy and the introduction of a central tax-gathering mechanism, which will happen in the future and is even mentioned in the Maastricht treaty, for those of us who have read itit is clear that Governments and political parties will eventually have to say to the people, Well, we are sorry about the recession and the other problems, but there is not a lot we can do about it, because the power has gone. It is now vested with people who are not elected and are not accountable, but who can make decisions that have the most profound effect on your lives.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Cryer: No, because I have almost finished.
	At that point, the turnout in elections and the participation in the democratic process will drop like a stone.

David Heathcoat-Amory: The Convention on the Future of Europe is very nearly at an end. Tomorrow morning, I shall travel to Brussels on what I think will be my 32nd visit in the past 16 months. I will be joining the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who is out there already. I am very grateful for the kind remarks directed at me and the hon. Lady in respect of our efforts to defend the British position and the powers of this House during the course of the convention.
	I hope that tomorrow's session will be the final one, as further damaging proposals against the British interest have been inserted at a very late stage in each of my previous visits to Brussels. In essence, however, we now have the draft in complete form. It is very important that we have a fully informed national debate on the matter, but that debate needs honesty as well as information. I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), as I normally do. He made an outstanding speech, especially in his appeal for an end to the cynicism about politics and politicians.
	People simply do not believe that they have been told the truth about Europe over the years. They are constantly referred back to the 1975 referendum, but the Union is unrecognisably different from what we thought we were voting on nearly 30 years ago. It is time that we squared matters with the electorate, and told them exactly what is in store. We must get away from the absurd pretence that this is a tidying-up exercise. The Government must describe accurately and honestly the radical proposals, and defend them. If they are so good for this country, the Government should have the courage to put them to the British people in a referendum.
	One of the extraordinary facts about the European debate is that the Government have two radicalalmost revolutionarypolicies in respect of Europe. They want to give up the pound, and import a written constitution, yet it is I and other Opposition Members who are accused of being the extremists. All we want to do is retain powers at home, in the hands of people who are elected and who can be removedthat is, people who are clearly and directly accountable to those whom they serve. Is that radical or extreme?
	The Government must explain themselves. I agreed with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who described some of the proposals as inescapably constitutional. That is why it is called a constitution. We are making constitutional changes of enormous and far-reaching importance, as is widely accepted in other member states.
	All the existing treaties, and all the articles since 1957, are going to be repealed. After amendment, some will be brought back into the constitution. The result will be longer than the treaties that we already have, so any idea that we are simplifying or tidying up is absurd. The volume is getting larger, but I do not believe that the result will be any clearer, for the lay reader at least.
	For instance, we have been talking about the idea of shared competencies, but that is an example of eurospeak for shared powers. There is no clear idea about who does what. Do member states have 90 per cent. of a competence, and the Union 10 per cent? If that slowly evolves into the Union having 90 per cent. and member states 10 per cent., there will be no assurance to the public that the familiar power creep to the Union has finally been ended.
	As for qualified majority voting, the score in the present draft is that 34 new areas will be transferred from unanimity to QMV. That number increases every time I go to Brussels. Incidentally, QMV applied to only 12 areas under the Single European Act, which prepared the way for the single market.
	I share the alarm expressed on both sides of the House about the passerelle clause.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that it might have been a good idea to hold a referendum on the Single European Act as that was a principle change, too?

David Heathcoat-Amory: It was by no means as radical as the constitution that we are considering, as I think that the hon. Gentleman would concede. That treaty amendment was indeed far reaching, but it was focused on the single market, to which there was general assent. It was a liberating measure. What we are doing now is abolishing or repealing all the existing treaties and funnelling them into a constitution. That produces a new status and is a clean break with the situation that prevailed in the past.
	That is shown by the extremely late proposal for the so-called passerelle clause, whereby the European Council will, within itself, be able to agree to abolish all that remains subject to the national veto, putting the whole lot into QMV, with no recourse to the House or to the people. I agree with the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who called in question the working methods of the Convention, whereby, at a very late stage, this far-reaching proposal can be got in.
	Meanwhile, power is being centralised in the Union in some of the least efficient and most corrupt institutions in modern politics. Today, we heard the news that Eurostat has finally been raided. The scandal about the money expended by that EU agency has been rumbling on since 1999. We have heard the familiar denials and there has been the familiar suppression of evidence, but it is now conceded by the Commission that, to quote its press release,
	serious wrong-doing on a much more widespread scale than previously thought may have taken place.
	Why then are we transferring more powers from national jurisdictions to those institutions?
	The big losers are, of course, national Parliaments, contrary to the Laeken declaration, which recognised that, if the EU is to be brought closer to its citizens and made more democratic, national Parliaments had an inescapable extra role to fulfil. Instead of that, we have been fobbed off with a subsidiarity check that is no more than a request.
	I strongly agree with the points made by the distinguished Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), about criminal law and procedures. They are to be subject to qualified majority voting and as the report notes, that is hardly an appropriate way for an enlarged European Union to increase its democratic legitimacy. The gap between people and rulers will widen, especially given the fact that we are considering the power to punish and imprison our constituents. We are going to the core of what a nation state is about and we are handing over those powers to a more remote institutionthe European Union.
	I noticed that the Foreign Secretary objected only to criminal procedures being changed or amended by QMV. What about the actual laws? Is that not a red line issue, too?
	I want to raise a more fundamental issue: the very status of the constitution. Article I-10 states that Union law
	shall have primacy over the law of the Member States.
	That is derived from case law at the European Court of Justice, and to put that in an unqualified and unconditional way in a treaty article is a controversial step; but the interesting thing is the primacy of the constitution. The constitution contains many other obligations: that member states should pursue the objectives of the Union and should comply with all its measures, legal and executive, or that in foreign policy they
	shall actively and unreservedly support the Union's common foreign and security policy in a spirit of loyalty and mutual solidarity.
	According to the text, all that is to be superior to any law that we pass in this place, which has enormous implications for parliamentary sovereignty. It has always been accepted by Parliament and the courts that no Parliament can bind its successor. That means that this Parliament, or any future one, could repeal or amend the European Communities Act 1972. My question to the Government is: will we still be able to do that if we ratify the constitution, which asserts its primacy over the lawincluding, by implication, the 1972 Actand all the other laws of member states?
	In other words, will our traditional parliamentary sovereignty and our certainty, until now, that we cannot be bound by previous Parliaments survive a constitution that takes unto itself the statement and assertion that it is superior to any law, passed by any member state? That is not simply a hypothetical question; it is based on a reading of the text, giving normal meaning to the actual words. I therefore hopeindeed, I requirethe Government to address those legal points in the White Paper that they have promised.
	It is clear to me that we are signing up to an entirely new constitutional order, subject to a supreme court, which reduces member states and their laws to a position of permanent inferiority. Whether that is good or whether it is bad, it is certainly very important. It is certainly not a tidying-up exercise. That brings me to the same conclusion that many other hon. Members have expressed today: this must be decided, by the people, in a referendum.
	It amazes me that people on the radical wing of British politics do not understand that Governments must never define their own powers. That idea goes right back to Tom Paine and The Rights of Man. He understood that only the people could agree on a constitution; it is not an act of government. We must found this on the consent of the people. In purely tactical terms, if the Government were to decide to hold a referendum on the outcome, as most other member states will do, they would enormously increase their own bargaining position and their negotiating strength.
	When the Irish Government now say that they want something changed in the draft constitution, they can get their way because they have to sell their policy to the entire Irish electorate, but when the British Government ask for something, I am sure that they are told, Well, you've got a majority of 160-odd, what are you worried about? I conclude that, on constitutional grounds, on tactical grounds and on democratic grounds, the case for a national referendum is inescapable, and I will support the amendment to that effect.

Bill Tynan: I was a bit concerned that I would follow the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), whose oration in the Chamber this afternoon was superb. The gift of an orator of that calibre is that he can often convince his audience that the case that he is making is right, and I am not convinced by the case that he made this afternoon. I mean no disrespect to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory). I applaud his oration todayit was excellentbut I still reserve the right to disagree.
	Over the past few months, there has been considerable discussion about the European Convention, and we should not miss the opportunity that it presents. The intention was to bring European government and institutions closer to the people of this country. It is important to recognise that that was one of the key facets of the Convention. As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Standing Committee on the Convention, I have at times been disappointed that we did not have a quorum to listen to the contributions from hon. Members and those in the other place. Those Committees have worked diligently to report to both Houses, but it is important to recognise that we have not taken the opportunity to the full extent that we should have done. The media in general have ignored the Convention. They have ignored the fact that we are seriously debating the future of Europe and where we should go.
	Enlargement is one of the important issues that we have to consider. The fact that we have a new constitutional treaty is inextricably linked to the enlargement process. Ten new countries coming inan increase from 15 member states to 25creates a need for a change as well as an opportunity within the European Union.
	In relation to the original treaties, people do not understand references to first pillar, second pillar or third pillar. They will recognise, however, that we are attempting to bring the Union closer to the people, to change the structure of Europe and to make sure that we speak in a language that they can understand.
	Some hon. Members today have dealt with the issue of a referendum. I am not sure that we should go down that line. At the last European elections, there was an average 29 per cent. turnout. The media largely ignore Europe unless they want to promote or make a joke about something silly. I do not think that they have taken Europe seriously enough.

Robert Walter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for referring to the turnout at various electoral contests. Does he acknowledge that the last time that we had a referendum on the European Union, the turnout was well over 70 per cent., and in some areas of the country it is was over 80 per cent?

Bill Tynan: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am dealing with current position. No one can deny that people are disconnected from the European parliamentary process, which is what I see constantly.
	The Union must be able to function when the number of states rises from 15 to 25. The gains that will result from welcoming so many states into the European Union should not be put at risk by allowing the structures and the working of the EU to grind to a glorious halt. The benefits of enlargement are clear. The accession states will bring inor bring home100 million more people, and the EU will become the largest international single market. Even the least optimistic models show a gain for current member states of Euro10 billion and a boost of nearly 1 per cent. of gross domestic product from enlargement.
	As a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have been privileged to visit accession countries. The sense of excitement within their boundaries is easily recognisable. Some Opposition Members may find that hard to believe, but they look forward to being part of a united Europea Europe of 25 countries working in tandem and delivering for the people of those countries. For many states, it marks the conclusion of a long journey back to the European mainstream, while for others, such as Cyprus and Malta, it reflects a continuity of historical close links and relationships. The results of the referendums on accession have demonstrated the strength of feeling and the benefits that these countries believe they can achieve by becoming EU members. We should salute those decisions and recognise and welcome the expansion of the EU. It is a real opportunity not only for the accession countries but for the EU as a whole.
	On the fears about what the Convention means for our constitution and sovereignty, I recognise that some individuals may feel threatened by proposals currently being put forward. Although most constituents in the UK are happy with the European Union and comfortable with the benefits that they have received from it, they rightly fear that federal and integrationist tendencies might work against their best interests. What I find completely distasteful, however, is that legitimate fears are being stirred up and hijacked for political gain, against the national interest, by those who are anti-European. I will concede that to be against the idea of a constitutional treaty is not to be in favour of leaving the EU, but I suspect that many of those who shout loudest at present would not be unhappy at the prospect of withdrawal.
	I want to touch on three areas about which there is undue alarm. First, there is the relationship between decisions made at European level and legislation passed by Parliament, often described as the primacy of EU law.
	In overturning the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, the Factortame case in 1990 set the principle that, where the United Kingdom had agreed to act through the creation of European laws, the UK cannot then make national laws that contradict what has already been agreed. That was decided in 1990, and this Parliament retains its authority and can, as many Conservatives Members would wish to do, repudiate the original treaty commitments. The proposed constitutional treaty merely makes this existing situationone that the Conservative Government in 1990 did nothing to reverseexplicit and clear.
	The UK is party to many other international treaties that, on occasion, have primacy over our wider law. I would be surprised and concerned if those who loudly condemn the situation with regard to Europe took their position to its full logical extent and sought to change, for example, our membership of the United Nations, the Ottawa convention and even the Geneva convention so that we were no longer legally bound by the commitments that come from those arrangements. An agreed framework for the EU ensuring that no country avoids its commitments should be something that we all welcome.
	It was that legal basis rather than the Major Government's pointless posturing that led to the EU's legal action against France, which contributed to the lifting of the ban on British beef. Without that legal basis, France would have been within its rights to ban our beef despite its commitment as a fellow EU member. It would be a strange club that sought to negotiate a common agreed policy and then gave its members complete licence to do whatever they saw fit.
	I turn to qualified majority voting. I admit that, for a Union of 25 to function properly, it is necessary to modernise policy making by extending QMV to some additional areas. I am, however, more than happy to see the strength of the Government's commitment to retaining unanimity in key areas such as foreign policy, defence and taxation.
	We all understand that the need to retain unanimity over QMV is an important defence of our sovereignty and national interests. What concerns me is that QMV is often portrayed as little more than a sinister plot to force through decisions that the UK would always disagree with. That is surely based on a profoundly pessimistic and outdated vision of the UK, alone on the fringes of Europe standing against foreign hordes. I believe that we have many friends in Europe who, when they cast their votes on a decision, will cast them alongside us.
	Finally, on the shape of the EU, the European Scrutiny Committee looked at the proposals for an elected president. We have heard about the six-monthly rotating presidency, and we could not continue with such an anomaly with 25 member states. That is why we need an elected president in Europe. We should not argue against that.
	The Council of Ministers is by far the most important lawmaker, and it has been so for many years. However, it meets and takes decisions in secret, and I welcome the fact that its decisions will be open to the public and open to scrutiny. It is important that we are able to connect with the people of this country, and we can do that by having a sensible and open debate on the issues that concern them. I hope that the House will support the motion.

David Trimble: I must confess that I rise to speak on this subject with a certain amount of trepidation. As with most EU matters, those Members who are in a certain magic circle are well informed about what is happening, but the picture becomes clear to the rest of us only at the last minute and there is a flood of documentation that we endeavour to master. Over the past few weeks, I have been rather preoccupied with other matters and it has only been in the last day or two that I have had the chance to start to catch up with the new constitution. I have been reading the reader-friendly version by Jens-Peter Bonde, and I recommend it to other Members. He is a distinguished Danish Member of the European Parliament to whom I have been indebted on a number of occasions. I am indebted to him now.
	I read with interest the little squib in The Times this morning by the Minister for Europe. I was struck by the paragraph in which he argued against the calls for a referendum. He wrote:
	Obviously there is always a discussion to be had on how one takes a major national decision. In Britain, line-by-line scrutiny of international treaties by Parliament is the norm.
	At that point I stopped in amazement. He said that line-by-line scrutiny of international treaties is the normrubbish. That is utter, complete nonsense. We have never had line-by-line scrutiny of a European Union treaty. We will not be able to scrutinise this treaty. If we follow traditionI share hon. Members' amazement at the Government's conversion to tradition on this mattera Bill will be introduced to give legal effect to the treaty after the process has concluded. There will be line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, but it will drafted in such a way as to inhibit scrutiny of the treaty as much as possible. I remember the tremendous contortions through which hon. Members had to go to try to frame amendments to Bills to enable them to discuss specific parts of treaties. The process does not represent scrutiny of a treaty in any meaningful sense. It is an affront to parliamentary democracy to proceed in such a way, and that has been the case for a long time.
	Ever since I first came to the House and had the opportunity to sit through the debates on Maastricht, I have been amazed that we continue to use the treaty-making power by royal prerogative to change part of our own constitution. European treaties form part of the British constitution, as will this treaty. Governments have used the royal prerogative to change the constitution to the exclusion of the Members of this House and, consequently, those who elect us.

Denis MacShane: The right hon. Gentleman's rebuke is justified to some extent. He gave me an excellent seminar on the subject several months ago in the Committee or Library Corridor, and I should have digested it better. The term ratification is used as shorthand.
	Surely the right hon. Gentleman accepts that after the treaty is signed, the European Communities Act 1972 will have to be amended. The line-by-line debate will take place then. He went through the same process when the Maastricht treaty was consideredI was not a Member of the House then. The House will get its chance to consider the treaty and it will be able to reject it. If that happens, the instrument of ratification, which would take the country further along the road that would be offered under this treaty or a previous treaty, may not be deposited in Rome.
	The right hon. Gentleman is intellectually and academically quite right and I hope that he will forgive my use of shorthand, but the House will debate the treaty after the intergovernmental conference.

David Trimble: I was glad that the Minister started by conceding that my point was accurate, but he tried to diminish that by saying that it was academic. It is not academicit is extremely important. Proper line-by-line scrutiny of the new constitution is desirable because it will form a significant part of the United Kingdom's constitution. It will become even more significant as the European Court of Justice interprets it in years to come. The most important aspect of the debate is the fact that views on the meaning of the treaty may come from the Treasury Benches and other parts of the House, but the only views that will matter will be those of the European Court of Justice. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) was quite right about the drift and drive behind the decisions of that place.
	We need line-by-line scrutiny of the constitution. To achieve that, we need to make fundamental changes to the way in which we conduct our business. I have long been of the view that the royal prerogative on treaty making should not be used on any European matter. Agreements that come out of intergovernmental conferences should come before the House in their totality so that they are scrutinised on a line-by-line basis.
	Debates on the issue have been criticised for involving the usual suspects, who make the usual comments, and nothing is advanced far. There is an element of truth in that. Simply having more debates would not be adequate. It is clear that the European Scrutiny Committee and other Committees have done much work. It is equally clear, however, that the public are ignorant of it. I do not want to sound dismissive, but that work is an extended consultation by the Government before the event. It expresses opinions that the Government can consider with regard to their future conduct. They can decide whether to adopt recommendations, which they can take to Europe where they might not be carried.
	When hon. Members criticised the draft constitution, the Minister commented from a sedentary position words to the effect of, We don't yet know exactly what is going happen because the output from the IGC is the crucial consideration. However, by the time something emerges from the IGC, there will be virtually no opportunity for proper scrutiny of it. In an ideal worldI have no great expectation that this will happenthe House would consider the new constitution after the IGC in the equivalent of a Standing Committee, which would allow it to be scrutinised line by line. That would provide the opportunity for a thorough debate, focused on particular articles and paragraphs. It would take a long time, but as a result we would educate the House and the public. People complain about the lack of public interest, but that happens because the debate is not focused. The knock-about in the tabloid press and the usual comments by the usual suspects in the House are treated to the same weary expression that the Minister has on his face.
	We need a detailed and focused debate, but that is not happening. Instead, we get the usual comments from the usual suspects, a mini-rant from the Secretary of State and a squib from the Minister in The Times this morning. The Minister did something very bad and it is not worthy of praise. Apart from the inaccuracy that I mentioned, he did something abhorrent: instead of engaging with the argument, he tried to pin the labels of Europhobe and xenophobe on those of us who doubt the policy and complain about it. That distorts the argument. He does not want to make his argument in detail, so he casts a slur on everyone who disagrees with him by saying, Do you want to be in Europe or do you want to leave? He tries to convince people that if we do not want to leave Europe, we must dismiss all the concerns and questions raised, and not allow any debate.
	We know that there will be no debate after the IGC. Instead of proceeding in that intellectually dishonest way, it would much better if the Government said that they would provide a proper focused debate in the House after the IGC. If we had such a debate, it would become abundantly clear that the Convention is not a tidying-up exercise, but makes major and fundamental changes to our constitution. In those circumstances, it would be abundantly clear that it is right to hold a referendum.

Wayne David: It is, unfortunately, all too often the case in this country that any debate on Europe is dominated by the tabloid press, and as a consequence, we get more heat than light. I certainly think that that is the case in the debate, such as it is, on the Convention on the Future of Europe and the proposed draft constitution. We have heard all kinds of wild statements about 1,000 years of history coming to an end, and reference has been made yet again to square strawberries and straight bananas. [Hon. Members: In this debate?] I am talking about the debate in the countryhon. Members should pay attention.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Wayne David: I have hardly started to develop my argument, so I ask my hon. Friend to intervene later.
	Much of the argument deployed in the House has been against the European Union as a whole. We have also seen such arguments used in the contributions of Members to the debate, such as it is, outside the House. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has done a diligent job on the constitution, and I commend him for his work. Nevertheless, he has argued publicly not so much against the Convention's proposals, but in favour of this country having associate membership of the EU. That is simply not compatible with our present status of full membership. Conservative Members cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they should be prepared to engage in the EU, and to have a debate on the terms that are widely accepted, or they should argue for a different kind of relationshipin other words, that Britain should leave the EU. I wish that they would be honest in their arguments.

Richard Bacon: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that unless one accepts the debate in the terms in which it is now cast, one is being dishonest?

Wayne David: What I am saying is that if one argues for associate membership of the EU, one is arguing for a fundamental change in Britain's relationship with the Union which is tantamount to withdrawal from the EU. That is very clear. I urge the House to be much more honest in its arguments so that people outside know what is being said, rather than merely what is being implied.
	On the referendum, again we have experienced more heat than light. We have heard various calls for a referendum on the Convention, but I have to say, in response to the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), that it is important to have consistency. Where were Conservative Members in 1986, when the Single European Act introduced the largest ever single extension of qualified majority voting? Did they call for a referendum then? No, they did not. The Maastricht treaty, on economic and monetary union, provided an opportunity to advance the case for a referendum, but was such a case made? No, it was not. I say to Conservative Members, with all due respect, that if arguments are to be credible, they have to be consistent, and theirs are neither credible nor consistent.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend is talking about consistency, and I entirely agree with him. I would have held referendums on both those issues. Does he agree, however, that at the last election and the one before, one of the great strengths of our position was that we were giving the people a choice about whether they wanted to join the euro? Would it not be equally damaging if we went into the next election as the only party refusing to have a referendum on the Convention?

Wayne David: It is important to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the issue of the euro and that of the draft constitution. Entering the euro would represent a fundamental change in our economic relationship with the EU, but given not only the text of the draft constitution but the negotiating position that the Government have made cleartheir line in the sandit is impossible to imagine a scenario in which it would bring about a fundamental change in Britain's relationship with the EU.
	I shall give an example to show what I mean. It is important that we recognise the need for modest change in the EU because of a single factorthe biggest enlargement of the EU since its creation. Ten new member states will enter the Union next year. It will not be possible to continue the present processes; we need simplification to make those processes more straightforward. We need also to consolidate the umpteen treaties that amend the 1957 treaty of Rome so that we have one consolidated text. Lay people could then understand what the EU is and how it functions. That is what the Convention debated and that is what we should be talking about today.
	The text that has been presented to us is a good basis for discussion and agreement, and I welcome a number of points in it. First, I welcome the proposal for a significant extension of qualified majority voting, which is needed for the reason that I have just given. If we want the European Union to function properly and develop policies to meet people's needs and address their concerns, we must have a mechanism in place that allows those policies to be made. QMV therefore makes sense. An issue that my constituents and I are concerned about, for example, is asylum policy. It does not make any sense in a union of 25 states to have a system that requires unanimity on an issue such as asylum. We need to work through the issue and establish common ground so that the EU can develop a policy that is in Britain's national interest. QMV has a better chance of bringing that about than the rigid maintenance of the veto, no matter what.

Robert Walter: Would the hon. Gentleman therefore disagree strongly with the German Minister of Foreign Affairs, who has said that he is not in favour of QMV in that area of policy, as it is not in Germany's national interest? Are we talking only about the UK's national interest?

Wayne David: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point. All too often when we talk about the veto and the need to maintain it, no matter what, we do not recognise the fact that the maintenance of the veto for Britain means the maintenance of the veto for all the 15, soon to be 25, states. We should not worry about whether or not it is in our national interest and that of other countries to maintain the veto, but we should consider how we can work together to make sure that we go forward together and introduce policies that are of mutual benefit to us all. That is essentially what the debate is about.
	I therefore welcome the extension of QMV. Secondly, I welcome the formal inclusion of the role of national Parliaments in the EU decision-making process. Subsidiarity has been talked about before, and has been referred to in previous treaties. At last, however, a formal mechanism is beginning to take shape that recognises the crucial role of national Parliaments in ensuring that that principle is maintained. There is also recognition that national Parliaments should not operate in splendid isolation in their own countries, but should work across national boundaries, co-operating with other Parliaments in other countries.
	I particularly welcome the greater role to be played by the European Council. For me, the bottom line is that the European Union is an association of independent sovereign states. If the European Council had a two-and-a-half year presidency of the European Union, renewable for another term, that would provide a much more effective strategic direction for the EU. However, I also have some concerns. It is only right that such concerns be expressed, because we are talking not about a definitive document, but about a set of proposals to be debated and determined by the IGC. First, I would like much more discussion in the IGC about the role of national Parliaments. As we have heard this afternoon, an excellent report was produced by the European Scrutiny Committee, which builds on the commendable work of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I believe that the IGC should agree that when two thirds of national Parliaments reject a proposal from the European Commission, the Commission should be obliged to withdraw that text, reconsider it and offer something more appropriate.
	My second big reservation about the text concerns the flexibility clausearticle I-17, or the passerelle clause. One of the strengths of a consolidated text such as the draft treaty is that it sets out clearly, once and for all, what the EU is all about and offers clear procedures for the way in which policies are to be implemented. It is therefore something of a contradiction for the draft constitution to include an article stating that further amendments to the treaty can be made without reference to national Governments or national ratification processes. I think that that is a contradiction in terms, so I would like the flexibility clause to be either amended or removed completely.
	Those are a couple of my reservations, and I agree with many of the reservations expressed by hon. Members, but I genuinely believe that this document is an excellent starting point for a serious and honest debate in this House and in the country. I hope that we will seize the opportunity and see Europe as a construction that enhances our well-being and future, rather than as a threat that is always to be feared. I think that this text represents the start of what will therefore be a positive process.

Robert Walter: This has been an excellent debate in which arguments have been put forcefully on both sides of the House.
	I should like to start by trying to bury the myth that my party is somehow the anti-European party that wants to leave the European Union, whereas the Government party is the one that is full of enthusiasts for it. It is evident that the Labour Benches are not packed this afternoon with enthusiasts for the Union, and I am not sure whether another speaker will be found on those Benches.
	Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who first took Britain into the European Community. In 1975, when the then Labour Government renegotiated their membership of the Union, the Labour party could not get its act together, and it was the Conservative party, led by Margaret Thatcher, that was in the forefront of the campaign for a yes vote in that referendum. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the Single European Act. It was also a Conservative Government, although not necessarily with universal acclaim, who brought forward the Maastricht treaty, which incorporated for the first time the pillared structure that put in place the concept of subsidiarity and the opt-outs for various nation states.
	The Convention was, as conceived, a very good exercise in its initial stages. It set out to simplify anddare I use the phrase?tidy up, if only by three quarters, various issues. However, in respect of any simplification and greater accountability or transparency, it has singularly failed. The hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), who has just left the Chamber, asked who had given evidence and made submissions to the Convention. I was one of those who did so, and I did so along with a group of others. We made a submission to the Convention laying out what we thought it should do. I am not aware that we were all funded by the European Union, as he suggested, but our signatories included two former commissionersperhaps that is what he meantas well as two former Foreign Secretaries, three former Chancellors and a former Deputy Prime Minister to boot.
	We took it upon ourselves to be positive about the process and to set out what we thought the Convention should deal with. The first thing we felt that the Convention should do was to make clear to the citizens of Europe what the EU is, what it stands for, what it seeks to do for its citizens and what it does not seek to do. We felt that it should aim to enlist greater public support for, and knowledge of, the European Union and to involve national Parliaments more closely in its decision making; to modernise the institutions of the Union so that they can operate effectively in the enlarged Union; and to give the Council greater continuity and ensure that it is clearer and more open in what it does.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's comments with interest. Is it not rather strange that after 47 years of the European Union's existence we are still trying to decide what it is for?

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman. The European Union is a continually evolving structure. We have been a member for only 30 of those 47 years. We have reached the point where we need such a reassessment: we need to sit down and put on to one sheet of paper exactly what we are about in this relationship with our partners and neighbours on the continent.
	We also said that we wanted the Convention to ensure that the Commission acts more effectively in those areas that are within its competence and is held more openly to account; to provide an institutional mechanism for giving the European Parliament a more coherent role alongside perhaps greater powers of scrutiny; and to enhance the rule of law.
	I feel that the Convention has lost its waythat it is a bit of fudge, with some ideas going in one direction and some going in another. Although I am in favour of a referendum on the constitution, explaining the detail to the British people would be very difficult.
	I want to pick up on one aspect of the constitution that I feel very strongly about. On first reading, a charter of fundamental rights for the citizens of the Union, which is outlined in the proposals, seems an entirely reasonable concept, given the fundamental principles of the founding treaties. However, membership of the European Union already requires accession to the earlier European convention on human rights. The Council of EuropeI sit in its Parliamentary Assemblypre-dates the European Union. The convention, which it established in 1950, has some 44 European member state signatories and a long-established judicial process that leads up to the European Court of Human Rights. Most member states have incorporated the convention in their domestic law, as did the United Kingdom in 1998.
	Given the number of existing national, European and international human rights instruments that have been ratified by EU member states, another human rights instrument will present a situation of duplication and rights saturation. Should the European Court of Justice gain jurisdiction over the new charter, and thus move extensively into the field of human rights, it will be faced with an unnecessary increase in litigation. That will be of little benefit, given the already large backlog of cases that it has to deal with. For the European Union, human rights protection might well be further improved, but for Europe as a whole the process could lead to a considerable loss. Europe would be split on human rights. Non-members of the EU would suffer enormously if the EU were to go its own way with its own charter of fundamental rights.
	If the Union believes that the existing convention is deficient, surely the way forward is to improve it. The European Union should itself become a signatory to the convention, as is proposed in the document, then seek a new protocol to the convention that includes those vital new aspects contained in the proposed charter of fundamental rights that differ from those in the existing convention. It is unnecessary to create a duplicate human rights structure in the soon to be 25 member states of the European Union. It will inevitably lead to testing by litigants of both the convention and the charter.
	I want to end by considering a referendum, which other hon. Members have raised. I do not know what the Government have to hide. I said in an intervention that when we last held a referendum, the turnout was more than 70 per cent. The British people appreciated having the basis of our membership of the then European Community explained to them and the opportunity to vote on it. The result was an overwhelming 2:1 majority in favour.
	After 30 years of membership of the European Union, for those of us who believe that Britain's role is at the heart of that Union, that Britain has a contribution to make and that the European Union is about the future, the Convention or constitution will give us the opportunity to rehearse the arguments. I hope that we shall have a European constitution that we can defend. We may end up with a constitution that we find difficult to defend because it contains aspects with which we would not agree, given our fundamental beliefit is minein a Europe of nation states. I believe that we should act together on what we best do together and reserve for member states what should rightly remain with them. We should sell that message to the British people. If the Government shy away from that, they hide the fact that the document contains something that they do not want to expose to the people.

Malcolm Bruce: I commend the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) for his constructive speech. It was the first speech from the Conservative Benches that was made in that spirit. None of the other contributions from Conservative Members gave the impression that they believed that anything in the draft constitution was good. The hon. Gentleman adopted a more constructive approach.
	A constitution that is drawn up by a process of consensus and involves 15 member states and 10 applicants is inevitably a compromise. We cannot write our own constitution. Those who claim that we can be an associate member or that we can somehow pick and choose fail to understand the dynamics of the organisation of which we form part. As the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said, the Convention brings together, for the first time in a coherent and intelligible form, the basic mechanism for the operation of European Union.
	I well remember when the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who played a substantial role in ratifying parts of the Maastricht treaty, admitted in his inimitable way that he found the treaty totally incomprehensible, not least because it was full of references to previous committees and amendments, which rendered understanding impossible without a massive amount of research.
	The value of bringing everything together in a single document, which any citizen can read and understand and take advice on is surely commendable and desirable. There is a danger of becoming fixated on whether we have a referendum. We have argued consistently that a referendum is desirable for major constitutional changes, but there is a danger of the matter becoming such an obsession that we lose sight of what we are trying to debate and discuss.

Angela Browning: At what point will the Liberal Democrats decide whether there are constitutional implications and whether they support a referendum?

Malcolm Bruce: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady was present for the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), in which he made it abundantly clear that there are sufficient constitutional changes to justify a referendum. We could not say that until we had a text that could be analysed, but we would do a disservice to the document and its implications if we focused our attention entirely on that and lost sight of the fact that we are supposed to be trying to shape a document that will become a reference for Europe for a long time to come. Given the role that the United Kingdom has already played under the table and above the tableif I may put it that wayit is substantially shaped by British input, about which we have every reason to be satisfied.
	I suspect that the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) is already on the Eurostar to Brussels to join the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I noticed that he was happy to accept the accolades of the House about his role in negotiating substantial chunks of the constitution on behalf of the British people, British Parliament, British Governmenthowever one wants to put itand the United Kingdom, yet he turned up in Estonia and told people that it is a constitutional issue of which they should be wary, and that perhaps they should not join the organisation that would bind them into a constitution. There is a little inconsistency in his advocacy.
	One of the problems is that it is becoming fashionable in the drawing rooms of the United Kingdom to be anti-EU, in a way that it used to just as fashionable to be pro-EU. A decision such as this is should be determined not by drawing-room fashion but by a fundamental assessment of what we are trying to achieve. There are peopleI receive letters from them myselfwho believe that there are cellars in Brussels full of gnomes, who are mostly French and German, who do nothing else from morning until night, and through the night and at weekends, but draw up measures, articles and amendments to treaties that will destroy a thousand years of British history. People should back off a little and recognise that every country has special interests for which it will want to argue, but that we all have a huge interest in the net sum added value that a successful EU can and should deliver.
	I am probably the only Member so far who has introduced this aspect of the debate, but it is relevant that we are now in a world that is dominated by a superpower, which, to be frank, does not share our European values on matters such as human rights, international co-operation, the respect of law and international treaties. It is important that Europe stands for those values and finds the ability to produce common policies. There will be occasionswe have just witnessed onewhere that will not be achieved, and there is nothing in the document that forces people to do anything. It is not about having a single foreign policy or defence policy, but about having a common policy wherever we can seek it. That is not just in the interests of Europe, but in the interests of the wider world.
	I played a small part in the sustainable development summit in Johannesburg, where the EU negotiated as a single entity and where the British Government were only part of the EU team. We were outmanoeuvred by the United States because we did not have sufficient flexibility or ability to adapt policies at short notice, whereas the Americans did. We should learn from that. I never think that it is easy, but it is important and desirable for us to achieve such objectives.
	The idea of the veto being waved around as a virility symbol is to fail to recognise, as has been said, that one country's veto is everybody else's obstacle. There are certain areas over which we do not agree that the EU should have power, either jointly or collectively. In reality, probably a majority of countriescertainly more than enoughdo not believe that the right to deploy one's troops or set one's taxes is something that the EU should decide. [Interruption.] There is room for constructive harmonisation, particularly of indirect taxes, in the interests of a single market, but if we were to have a single currency, losing that flexibility makes it almost impossible to adjust to domestic circumstances.
	The document represents the credibility of a sensible discussion, and people must focus on what it is we want out of the EU, recognising that it is, by definition, a compromise among 25 countries, in which we have to give to get, but the art of negotiation is to give as little and get as much as we can. What we must not do is become so introvert, so introspective and so obsessive about what we see as the plots and the wickedness underneath that we lose sight of our real national interest. It matters that Europe works together, it matters for the world, and it matters that Britain plays a full part in that.

Ian Paisley: I want first to speak about religious issues, which have been raised in debate in the European Convention and which will bring great problems to the so-called furtherance of European unity. The Library research paper, The Convention on the Future of Europe: proposals for a European Constitution, touches on the matter, but apart from that there is very little on it.
	We heard about Athens today, of all places. I am reminded of the apostle Paul's first visit there when he saw an altar to the unknown God, and he felt that it was time for him to speak up and explain who God was and the arguments for the being of God. There is a proposal before the ConventionI do not know whether it has had any debate at allthat the name of God should be written into the new constitution. Putting a God tag on the constitution will not make it godly or Christian, or make the people under it godly or Christian.
	The House is opened each day with prayer to God. We might ask: what God? Is it an unknown God; is it everyone's God? According to the prayer book from which the prayer is taken, it is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that he is the true and living God. Other hon. Members will have their own opinions, but I believe that God has set his Son over this world as sovereign, as king of this world. His kingdom is not forced on anyone; it is accepted not by persecution but by persuasion only. Those who are persuaded not to accept him do not accept him, and those who are persuaded that they will accept him crown him as king of their lives. Each one has a choice to make, and each one will answer to him personally on the great day of judgment.
	I do not accept that by putting the name of God somewhere in the new constitution is the way to make the new Europe godly and Christian. Putting a deity pin on the constitution would be an act of hypocrisy, not an act of truth. Christ the king reigns in the hearts of those who acknowledge him and have crowned him to be so. Those who reject him have made their decision. Pinning the name of God somewhere on the constitution is not to be advocated. Such an act will in no way change the real nature of the EU.
	Having said that, the religious issues in Europe are of deep significance and importance. Many of them flow from the Reformation of the 16th century and are embedded in Church-state relationships in the various states. Mere mention of this is made in the document, but an examination of the states of Europe reveals different relationships between Church and state in almost every one. Such matters are now being raised in certain places in terms of a limit to human rights.
	At the end of the document, we are told something that I would challenge: that in Europe, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. One need only go to France to see the rising tide of persecution of those who belong to the smaller Protestant denominations. On this very issue, the Home Office is currently dealing with the question of whether a Frenchman should be sent back to France for trial. That case will be decided in the near future. Of course, anyone who has been to Greece will know of the great limits on religious liberty in that country. Similar things could be said of other European countries. This matter needs to be confrontedthere is no use in our sweeping it under the carpet.
	In answer to my question at the beginning of the debate, the Foreign Secretary made it plain that all written constitutions, and all countries that have no written constitutions, will be bound to and subservient to this new constitution. Nothing could be plainer than that, which brings me to the very heart of the matter: a referendum. Momentous changes are in prospect about the way in which we are to be ruled. Much of what is being proposed is counter to our vital interests and goes against the grain of what people really want. The Government do not have a mandate to agree to such sweeping developments, which will change for ever the future of this United Kingdom. If a referendum is required before we join the single currency, it is surely much more important that we decide for ourselves whether the Government should be under the authority of this overwhelming body. We need to keep that issue before us.
	The pretence that the European Union is largely about trade cannot be maintained when the constitutional Convention's proposals are viewed. The Convention operates almost entirely divorced from contact with any of the representative groups that are opposed to the integrationist development that it proposes. This is proving to be an utterly undemocratic processif not by name, then certainly by nature. A superstate is emerging; it is taking shape in the proposals that the Convention has discussed.
	I do not believe that there is any victory in pulling the word federalism out of this document, because Europe is not dealing in federalism. Federalism is various Governments handing over to a central authority what they wish to hand over and forming a federation, but that is not what Europe is doing. Europe claims supreme and total power over us all, and it will give us the handout that it wants to give. [Interruption.] It is all very well Members laughing, but that is what has happened. I have sat in the European Parliament since representatives were first elected to it. I have put my case to the people of Northern Ireland, and I have had the highest vote in the whole of Europe on this issue. I have topped the poll in those elections five times, and I have seen what happens at first hand. If anything is against the real principle of undiluted democracy, it is the European Union and what it is doing. It is proceeding not towards federalism, but towards a superstate in which it will hand down and Mr. Prodi will decide what we do. That is the real issue before us.

Nigel Dodds: Will my hon. Friend explain why this Government deny a referendum when it is clear that people want such a say on the new constitution? In Northern Ireland, people want a vote in respect of the Assembly elections, yet the Government are quite happy to press a vote on people in areas such as the north of England, in which no such enthusiasm exists for a vote. Can he explain that dichotomy?

Ian Paisley: I do not understand what the Government's policy is. There was a referendum in Northern Ireland, and in order to put weight behind it the south of Ireland ran a referendum. We were told that that issue would never be raised, and that it was just something that they did. Now, in referring to that referendum, all Ministers talk about the fact that the wish of the people of Ireland is that we have the agreement. It was evident that the election, if it came, would put that in the Sadducees' grave with no resurrection. But the Government cancelled the election, and even in this House today we see what has happened to the official Ulster Unionist party. It has been completely halved. One half has said goodbye to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and all his works, and when he was in his constituency last night, a large number of people voted against him. So the position

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the amendments under discussion.

Ian Paisley: I shall be most happy to return to my theme, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was led astray by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) and you should blame him.
	Fewer decisions of any significance will be determined at national level if the new Convention takes over. Parliament will increasingly become a talking shop, rubber-stamping decisions already taken in Brussels. There is no effective way of controlling what the EU does in our name. The Convention proposes no effective, EU-wide democratic method of allowing the people to choose what policies they want. Indeed, power will be centralised within the Commission, which, we should not forget, still meets in secret. This is no substitute for the democratic system that has been built up over centuries in our nation and elsewhere. The real power of the EU is the Commission, which we do not elect and whose members we cannot remove. This power will increase greatly if the constitutional Convention's proposals go unchallenged.
	The EU itself is not a democracy, even if its member states are. It has always been a bureaucratic organisation, albeit with the ornaments of democracy. Instead of dealing with its democratic shortfall, this Constitution is strengthening that shortfall and the democratic deficit.

Angela Browning: One of the themes of today's debate has been encouraging because it is genuinely cross-party, and the more interesting fact is that it has been adopted by people who perhaps hold differing views on where the European Union is going and our role in it. That theme is that the people of this country should be allowed a referendum to decide on this very important constitutional matter. The Government's argument that the proposal for an EU constitution is not a constitutional matter, and that on that basis, there is no need to offer a referendum, is quite bizarre. It is clear that this is not just a tidying-up exercise; it is a constitution that establishes a Union with its own legal personality. Constitution and Union law is enshrined in it, which will have primacy over the law of member states. The Union will also have exclusive competence in many areas in which no such competence currently exists. And bizarrely, shared competence is to be introduced for the first time. However, as the barrister, Martin Howe, stated:
	This is not sharing competence in any meaningful sense: the competence of the individual state is residual, it's on sufferance and in vast areas the competence of the member states would simply be progressively taken away as more and more Union measures are made.
	Those are constitutional matters of great importance. Bizarrely, on 18 June, the Prime Minister, answering a question about why a referendum was acceptable on the currency, but not on the constitution, replied:
	What we have promised is a referendum on the single currency, should we recommend it . . . We will keep that promise. We have never promised a referendum on the European Convention, for the simple reason that, as I said earlier, it does not involve a fundamental change to the British constitution.[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 352.]
	That simply does not make sense. I suggest that we are to be denied a referendum in that respect for the same reason that explains the Government's five economic tests and their reluctance to put our membership of the euro before the British peoplepurely because they know that they would not win.
	Ministers chideno, chide is a rather kind term, they vilifyOpposition Members for not holding the same views on the future of Europe as they do and for not supporting the constitution. They claim that the Conservative party is out of touch with the views of the British people. However, as often happens, the caravan has moved on. I would commend to Ministers a poll carried out in The Economistnot a tabloid journalist's pollin which people were asked whether, in the event of a referendum on the proposed EU constitution, they would be in favour of or against Britain signing up for it. The results were: in favour, 18 per cent.; against, 44 per cent.; do not know, 33 per cent. That tells us that people want and need to know more. We need a full public debate, not just here in the Chamber, but out there. A referendum of the people would well serve their need to be informed before such a key decision is taken.
	There have been allegationsparticularly from the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) when he was in his placethat we Conservatives are all xenophobes who hate the French, the Germans and so forth. I have to say that, if I were married to a Japanese national, I would not be advocating the yen in favour of the pound sterling. It is a pernicious argument to accuse us of xenophobia simply because we hold different views. As in all debates, name calling from Ministers is usually an indication of a weak argument or a reluctance to put their case to the people.
	This Tuesday's The Wall Street Journal was interesting in featuring an interview with Valry Giscard d'Estaing about how he had conducted the Convention. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke a few moments ago about how the word federal has been taken out of context. Let me quote the article, where Mr. d'Estaing said:
	I knew the word 'federal' was ill-perceived by the British and a few others. I thought that it wasn't worth creating a negative commotion, mostly with the British, which could prevent them from supporting something that otherwise they would have supported. So I rewrote my text, replacing intentionally the word 'federal' with the word 'communautaire' . . . The text I wrote was distributed at the convention after my meeting with Tony Blair so people thought it was at Downing Street that I changed the wording
	so much for prime ministerial influence
	No. I did it a few days before. But of course it makes it easier for them.
	So all the way through, we can see negotiations going on to make it easy for the British, because people know in their hearts that the British are not going to stand up for too much. When I examine the Government's little list for the IGC, I doubt whether they would stand up for much in any case.
	I shall conclude because I want more of my hon. Friends to join in the debate and we are getting towards the end. In my book, and that of many people in this country when they come to assess the position, if we have a President, a constitution, a common currency, a common justice system, a flag, an anthem and all the rest, we basically have a nation state.

Peter Hain: indicated dissent.

Angela Browning: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his headreally. It is not that I am against the EU or any of its member states. I am not anti-German or anti-French. I count many people on mainland Europe as personal friends. However, I am British and ultimately we should decide what is in the British national interest, both constitutionally and economically. I am not afraid to say that that is why I am here and why I represent the people of my constituency, and I do not believe that it is in the British national interest to take on this constitution.

John Bercow: I have particular concerns about subsidiarity, the charter of fundamental rights and the way in which the Government intend to proceed in this matter without democratic legitimacy. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) rightly underlined, subsidiarity did not start with discussions about the constitution. It took root in the Maastricht treaty, article 3b of which was sadly unsuccessful.
	We then proceed in this important debate to negotiations over the treaty of Amsterdam. I remember the Government's proud, self-indulgent, flag-waving approach to the incorporation within that treaty of the protocol on the application of subsidiarity and proportionality. That protocol said:
	The application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality shall respect the general provisions and objectives of the Treaty, particularly as regards the maintaining in full of the acquis communautaire and the institutional balance; it shall not affect the principles developed by the Court of Justice regarding the relationship between national and Community law, and it should take into account Article 6(4) of the Treaty on European Union, according to which 'the Union shall provide itself with the means necessary to obtain its objectives and carry through its policies'.
	Any close inspection of that protocol would offer no serious crumb of comfort. It is certainly not a charter for decentralisation, still less a guarantee of the primacy in our affairs of national self-government.
	Nevertheless the Government were conscious of, and preoccupied with, the second part of the third paragraph of the protocol, which allowed for circumstances in which Community action could be restricted or discontinued where it was no longer required. That was the fig leaf on to which the Government clasped and was presumably the rationale behind the Prime Minister's decision on 18 June 1997 to make a statement to the House about the IGC, saying that he had successfully negotiated a new protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality, which had real teeth. That struck me as highly significant. In the subsequent years, I waited to see whether any decentralisation would take place, but it does not appear to me that any such decentralisation occurred.
	On 21 May this year, I took the opportunity to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he could identify a single directive or regulation under the terms of the protocol that had been repealed. The right hon. Gentleman, to his great credit, candidly replied:
	No, and the practice has been unsatisfactory.[Official Report, 21 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 1023.]
	So now their course of action is to say, Ah, but things will get better, because there is now a proposal that when one thirdin terms of voting strengthof the national Parliaments object to a particular proposal, there will be an obligation on the European Commission to review it. There is, of course, an obligation to review, but I invite the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) to bear in mind, and regard as dramatically significant in this debate, that that is where the obligation ends. Having reviewed the legislation in question, the Commission will be entitled to maintain, amend or withdraw it. That is why the European Scrutiny Committeebeing properly sceptical, in the best sense of that much maligned termobserved on 16 October 2002 that there was no requirement for any of the EU institutions to take the slightest notice of the legitimate representations of national Parliaments of member states on behalf of their aggrieved citizens.
	I remind the Leader of the House that we have been here before and we have heard similar assurances. Why should it be any different now? There is no obligation on EU institutions to respect the principle of subsidiarity, in the terms in which my hon. Friends and I understand it. As if that is not bad enough, we must take account of the context in which we are addressing the issue, which is that in the 10 years from 1992 to 2002 no fewer than 28,681 directives, regulations and decisions flowed forth from the institutions of the EU to impact on the member states. That is what gives urgencynay, immediacyto a proper resolution of this important matter.
	I am also concerned about the charter of fundamental rights. It is a legitimate set of aspirations and declaration of good intent, but I have two concerns. First, we would be giving our assent to something that has been drafted in accordance with the continental insistence on highfaluting declarations of good intent, rather than the more practical and reliable British insistence on specificity. In other words, we do not know what we will get when we sign up to it, or how it will be interpreted by the courts of the EU and the UK, given that the matters it contains will be justiciable.
	Secondly, I am alarmed that a Government policy to change the law on double jeopardy could be threatened by the incorporation of article II-50 of the charter. That is not because I believe that the double jeopardy rule should be changed, although there are arguments about the significance of DNA and whether changing circumstances justify a revisiting of that law. My point is not about the detail of the law but who is responsible for it. The future course of criminal justice policy, including the issue of whether people should be able to be tried twice for the same offence, is a matter of legitimate concern to democratically elected Members of the British legislature. It is, with respect, no business of the European Union, whichas my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) spent much of the last Parliament underliningshould do less, but do it better.
	On the question of the referendum, the Government do not have a leg to stand on. There are three elements to the issue. The first is the characteristic, ping-pong attitude of the Government when they say, You didn't have a referendum on the Single European Act or the Maastricht treaty, so there is no reason why we should have one now. I am prepared to confront that argument and say that I think that there was a powerful case for a referendum on the Single European Act and an even more compelling argument in support of a referendum on Maastricht. I argued the latter position on 22 October 1992 to the Twickenham Conservative ladies' conference and again to the Chelsea Conservative political centre on 6 May 1993. As hon. Members will imagine, massive audiences attended and my remarks were extraordinarily well received. However, even if there was not a good argument in those cases, there is one now because of the cumulative impact of the legislative changes and the arrogation of powers outwith the United Kingdom to people whom we do not elect, whom we cannot remove and whom, in some respects, it will become illegal to seek to persuade of the British national point of view. There is a good case for change.
	I was implicitly, though gently, rebuked by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife for apparently impugning the motives of Ministers. In reflecting on the rationale of the Government for saying no to a referendum, my concluding observation is that we should think back to Sherlock Holmes, who said words to the effect that when all the other possibilities have been eliminated, the remaining possibility, however improbable, must be the truth. The Government cannot be motivated by respect for tradition, by concern about precedent, or by a preoccupation with the niceties of decent behaviour and respect for the views of others to say, While we would dearly love to put our centralising proposals to deprive the British people of the power of self-government in so many new areas to them, it would not be fair on them and they are not really capable of making the decision. The truth is that the Government are scared. They are frit. They have not the intellectual or political self-confidence in their case to put it to the people. Instead they want to deny the British people a choice and to abuse those of us who came into this House to defend the cause of parliamentary democracy and national self-government.

Richard Spring: I congratulate all those who have participated in this debate and I thank the Foreign Secretary for sponsoring yet another parliamentary debate about the EU and the European Convention. I particularly thank our two parliamentary representatives at the Convention, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), who spoke brilliantly this afternoon, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), for their contributions over many arduous months.
	Of course, it is the greatest possible unalloyed joy to have with us this afternoon, in his very busy life, the Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales. He was described breathlessly in an article in The Times on Monday as follows:
	Fifty-three, tanned, trim, and handsome, he strides into his office in the Commons bursting with the joys of his day.
	I hope that he will send a signed copy of the article to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is clearly so eager to receive his advice on taxation. The Leader of the House famously wrote a book, Ayes to the Left, in which he suggested that the European Union was some sort of capitalist plot. It was rubbish then, and his latest pronouncements on the European Union similarly qualify as rubbishor, to use the new word, Horlicks.
	The best bit in the article in The Times states:
	He says the public has become disillusioned with politics because of hype and spin.
	However, the right hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to paint a picture of what has emerged from the Convention that is totally different from the perceptions of everybody else in Europe. Now the Government tell us that they will fight hard to amend some of the Convention's proposals, especially in respect of the collapsing of the three pillars. We wish them well, but if they fail, will they veto the treaty? I would be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's response to that.
	None of this should ever have been allowed to happen in the first place. Long before the Convention actually got under way, European Governments were setting out clear views of what the EU architecture should be. Our Government, I regret to say, produced virtually nothing. They opposed the written constitution and the binding incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights, butneedless to saywe have signed up anyway. That reflects a pathetic lack of leadership and focus.
	As the Library has accepted, at the IGC there will be renewed discussion of some of the more controversial articles but, very importantly,
	it is generally agreed that the IGC should not unpick the text agreed
	by the Convention. So there we have it. We know in essence what will emerge at the IGC, and we can make judgments on what that will mean for us, and indeed for the whole of the EU.
	Why did the Government agree to a written constitution? Either it is of lesser significance than what was agreed to at Maastricht or in the Single European Actas the Foreign Secretary tells usor as the German Foreign Minister said, reflecting pretty well everybody else's view, it is
	The most important treaty since the formation of the European Economic Community.
	I think I know whom to believe on that score. At the heart of the Convention's proposals lies the constitution. To all intents and purposes, it will be the first time that Britain has had a written constitution.
	The Foreign Secretary has said, in effect, that golf clubs have constitutions, so why should not any other organisation? Once it was clear that the Government, in their lack of conviction, had abandoned the rejection of a constitution, the right hon. Gentleman sought to reassure us last autumn with an article in The Economist. As we re-read it, it is almost beyond parody. It states:
	The constitution of the world's most complex international organisationthe United Nationsfits easily into my jacket pocket. The constitution of one of the world's oldest and most successful democraciesthe United Stateswould fit neatly into the other pocket . . . Size is importantthe smaller the better when it comes to constitutions! But size tells us another, more important, storythat of coherence.
	Well, I am holding the proposed constitution, all 250 pages of it: some constitution, some jacketindeed, some pocket. One wonders what the Foreign Secretary would make of the ten commandments.
	Several things are clear about the proposed European constitution. First, no one in Europe apart from the Government pretends that it is simply a tidying-up exercise. There will be large transfers of sovereignty from the EU's member states to the EU's institutions, and a profound reshaping of Europe's legal order. This country badly needs an open and genuine debate on this momentous change for the EU. That cannot happen while the Government, absurdly, play down the consequences of the constitution.
	I therefore appeal to the Government to have the courage of whatever convictions that they may have and acknowledge that this will be one of the most fundamental alterations to the EU since the treaty of Rome and, if they believe in it, to argue for it honestly. Along with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), we look forward to a comprehensive White Paper, to which the Foreign Secretary has already referred. I hope that that will elevate the debate. We also seek the assurances about our legal status that were spelled out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
	This constitution adds little in the way of the clarity that this Government said that they wanted. Indeed, it leaves some fundamental points quite unclear and no doubt they will be decided, regrettably, by judges in Luxembourg, as the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) noted. The sad fact is that this Government have never set out a clear vision of their own for Europe. The French have, the Germans have, the European Commission has, but the Government have not. It is no wonder that the charter of fundamental rights, which the Prime Minister claimed would be no more than a political declaration, is now to be legally binding. In Europe, this Government have been, in the end, content to follow, and not lead.
	The Convention on the Future of Europe has been a considerable missed opportunity, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said. The Laeken declaration that established it asked many of the right questions, but they have simply not been answered.
	Why are the Government so hostile to letting the people decide whether or not they like what the Government, quite clearly, are going to agree to? I can tell the Foreign Secretary that the party of European socialists website is rather more generous than he is. The president of that group is his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Its website of the month is one that is given over to the European referendum campaign. In marked contrast to the apparently closed minds of its brothers on the Government front Bench, the campaign makes an appeal that an EU constitution should be
	submitted to the citizens in a European referendum in all the countries concerned . . . that the Parliaments of the states concerned make the appropriate legal and constitutional provisions for a binding referendum
	and that
	the EU Constitution or Constitutional Treaty can only be adopted in the countries in which a majority vote in favour of it.
	The website confirms other facts that we already know. We read that a significant number of other countries will go for a referendum. Even Giscard d'Estaing appears to be in favour. In Britain, referendums can be held even down to the municipal level, but it is beyond belief that, as we acquire the first written constitution in our history, the British people are excluded from holding a referenduma point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning).
	No one with whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and I have discussed these matters has not expressed surprise at Britain's contribution to the debate about the architecture of the EU. Of course, many of them are delighted, because they are the ones who have shaped the structures, when Britain has simply been tinkering around the edges.
	What has the Government's policy of so-called constructive engagement yielded, as we approach enlargement? My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked that question. How many powers have been returned to Britain, in the name of subsidiarity? The answer is none. It took a previous Government to deliver a substantial rebate, obtain the single currency opt-out, and drive on the single market. What, by comparison, have this Government achieved? Many believe that the Lisbon process has effectively run into the sands, yet the Government have won agreement on a limited number of elements.

Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Spring: I am sorry, but I want the Leader of the House to have a substantial amount of time in which to wind up.
	At the heart of the issue before the House lie two extremely important questions. Do the recommendations of the convention close the gap between the institutions of the EU and its people, returning a sense of ownership to them, or do they simplify the architecture of the EU, so as to increase people's understanding?
	Before the convention began, the Leader of the House and the Foreign Secretary made a number of speeches highlighting the so-called democratic deficit. They were right to do so, of course. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) observed, the major challenge facing all democracies is lack of participation and lack of interest. Many commentators and others feel that the EU is running ahead of the capacity of people to absorb the rapid structural changes in it. As the Leader of the House has said, it is the elites of Europe who cause that sense of lack of accountability and control.
	Yet the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House have signed up to a vision of Europe that is not only old fashioned and completely ill suited to the way that global relationships are evolving, but which is actually what they themselves have warned against. The democratic credentials of the two right hon. Gentlemen go back many decades. When they consider what has come out of the convention and the fact it does not address the problem of the democratic deficit in any substantial way, I hope that they will pause and consider what they have signed up to.
	The British people must be given an opportunity to express their views. Every pathetic, third-rate excuse is employed to deprive the British people of that opportunity. Why should the British people be denied the opportunity that has been extended to many millions of our fellow Europeans? It is ironic that the Foreign Secretary and the Leader of the House, who in their youth were motivated with such a zeal for democracy, should suddenly get all coy and pretend that a written constitution is inconsequential. They say that it is just tidying up, when every other major EU leader totally rejects that view. They refuse the legitimate aspirations of the people of Britain to have their say. In its long history, Britain has never had a written constitution before, and this is their response.
	The British people are entitled to take a view, whatever that view may be. It is a sign of the Government's total lack of self-confidence and substance that, at every level of our national life, they are failing our people. Their attitude on this subject says it all, yet again.

Peter Hain: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) again, as I used to do when I was Minister for Europe. He performed with his normal courtesy and skill. As I have been constantly accountable to the House for the past 17 months, during the period when I represented the Government at the Convention, I am grateful for another opportunity of being thus accountableprobably for the last time, as my role on the Convention has ended.
	We got a good deal for Britain, protecting our key national interests and placing ourselves well, so that the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and their team can negotiate outstanding issues in the draft constitutional treaty during the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) called for a referendum, a point echoed by many of his colleagues. May I refer him to sensible Conservative comments about a referendum? For example, on The World at One on 27 May this year, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) said:
	I think there's no case for a referendum. Parliament's got to be left to do something and if Parliament can't analyse the ultimate version of this long new treaty . . . then Parliament isn't much use for anything.
	Another leading Conservative, who speaks with far more authority than anyone currently sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, Chris Patten, the European Commissioner[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) laughs and sneers, but Chris Patten was a Conservative party chairman during the period when the Conservatives used to win general elections. In The Spectator of 7 June, Chris Patten said that referendums
	are popular with unelected newspaper owners. Tories should oppose them . . . This Tory notes that the intellectually honest position of many of those in the forefront of the present campaign for a referendum is complete British withdrawal from the European Union.
	That is the Conservative agenda.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: I want to reply to some of the points made in the debate before taking interventions.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes made a point about NATO, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had to point out to him that he clearly had not read the draft constitution text very well, as the same wording is used in article 40, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph 2 as is used in article 17, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph 2 of the existing European Union treaty. So we had another Tory porkie on that matter.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) criticised the Government's advocacy and the way in which we had succeeded in achieving, in the draft constitutional text, a strengthening of the role of the Council of the EU. I am puzzled by that. He also criticised the achievement of the objective that an elected full-time president should chair the Council. I should have thought that he ought to support the institution that represents elected Governments and their heads, because the intergovernmental nature of the EU has been at its weakest recently. The British objective to strengthen the intergovernmental process through the European Council and its Council of Ministers was set because we believe that nation states, not Brussels federalists, should lead Europe.
	I am surprised at the criticism, made in similar terms, from the Conservative Benches. Why do the Conservatives think that, until the very last day of the Convention, the federalists in Brussels fought like mad the proposal for a full-time elected president of the Council? It was because they saw it for what it isa strengthening of the role of Governments. I should have thought that not only my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli but all hon. Members would support that.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) raised an important question about the publication of the White Paper. I am grateful that he did so. Publication depends a little on when the date for the beginning of the intergovernmental process is declared by the Italian presidency, but we shall publish it if we can, as the Foreign Secretary promised. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, for a period, we need to end constitutional tinkering in the EU; we need a period of stability and the present negotiations provide such an opportunity.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) and for Caerphilly (Mr. David) raised important questions about the role of national Parliaments. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale asked specifically about the role of the devolved Administrations. We have secured agreement that when the Commission brings forward a new proposal it is immediately e-mailed to national Parliaments, so that, for the first time ever, we have the chance to vet it. That is a big democratic advance, and I think that I was the only Government representative who argued for it. The proposal can then be copied on to the devolved Administrations so that their views, too, can be taken into account by Parliament.
	My hon. Friend asked for full transparency and accountability, on which he made important points. That is exactly what the British Government have been arguing for and it is exactly what we have achieved: all legislation should be dealt with in public so that the process is transparent and accountable.
	The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) reminded us of the brilliant debater that he isa much better debater than his successor. He called for a referendum, but perhaps there should be a referendum of Tory supporters on the leadership of the Tory party. We know why they will not call such a referendum: they are afraid of the result.
	I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer) made an unworthy criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). The truth is that she has held herself accountable to the House constantly, often turning up to Standing Committees on these matters that have been poorly attended. I do not think that she should be criticised[Interruption.] I shall withdraw if my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch wants to clarify that point.

John Cryer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I made no criticism, either explicit or implicit, of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart). I said that the Convention process was not entirely accountable or democratic, but I made it clear that that was no criticism of my hon. Friend.

Peter Hain: I apologise to my hon. Friend.The point that I was making is that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston has been constantly accountable to the House, as have my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and I, in my role in the Convention. We have constantly attended Scrutiny Committees in both Houses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale knows, and many debates have been held.
	It is significant that the Convention process has been more transparent and thus more accountable to the people of Europe than any other process. Never before has the preparation for an IGC been negotiated in public in that way. I should have thought that hon. Members would welcome that.

Several hon. Members: rose

Peter Hain: Before I take interventions, I shall respond to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who raised some important issues about the charter. The reason that we objected to the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights in the treaty in 1999 is that the proposal then was simply to shove it into the treaty, such that it would have provided, in effect, an open door for the European Court of Justice, and, perhaps, the Commission behind it, to change our domestic law and thereby extend European competence and powers. We were not prepared to accept that. That is why, to stop it happening, we negotiated a strong horizontal clause in the charter, together with several other blocking mechanisms, including a reference to the commentary in the treatyan important point to which the ECJ will have to pay due regard. After the final IGC negotiations, which my right hon. Friend will lead, we shall see whether we can accept the proposal.

Graham Allen: When the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), was winding up, he said that there is no gap between the Convention and the IGC; there is no room for manoeuvreI hope that I am right in saying that. Can my right hon. Friend make it clear that Parliament can have a view on this matter and that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is making provision for that? I hope that he and his colleagues will take notice of what the House has to say. I hope, too, that it will not be a case of the Conservatives taking their ball away if they cannot have their referendum. Later in his remarks, can my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House elaborate on the form that the pre-legislative scrutiny might take?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already given the commitment that we will ensure that the House is fully involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has made some valid proposals and we want to consider them carefully. The IGC process will take about nine months, so there will be plenty of opportunities to debate the matter. The Foreign Secretary constantly makes himself accountable to the House; he is one of the most accountable Cabinet Ministers because he is a strong believer in House of Commons accountability.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman, with his characteristic diffidence and charm, has been telling everyone what they should think and how brilliantly the Government have done. When the treaty is finally debated in the House, I may well even be on his side, but why is he afraid of putting it to the country? He is only afraid because he thinks he might lose. Will he, as the Leader of the House, give me a categorical answer to a question that he is equipped to answer? Will he give us an absolute guarantee not only that the treaty will be debated in its entirety on the Floor of the House, but that no guillotine will be imposed on it and, bearing in mind that so many of his own hon. Friends want a referendum, that there will be a free vote?

Peter Hain: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman a guarantee that the treaty will be debated on the Floor of the House, as has been the case with all previous treaties. If he is saying that we should not have a programme motion in the normal fashion to take the debate through, I am afraid that I have to disappoint him.

Richard Bacon: In arguing that we should not have a referendum, the right hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that not only Conservative Members, but Members representing Northern Ireland and Scotland, Liberal Democrat Members and many Labour Members, including those who take different views about political integrationI include the distinguished comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)all think that we should have a referendum. Indeed, they believe, in the words of his hon. Friends' splendid amendment to the motion, that
	the European Constitution must receive the endorsement of the people to be legitimate and binding.

Peter Hain: The Conservatives never had a referendum on anythingnot on Europe, not on anything. Only Labour Governments have held referendumsin 1975, on whether we should be in Europeand we will hold a referendum on the euro if we decide that it is in Britain's interests to enter.
	I want to make some progress. The big picture is that Europe needs reform. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) said, it has outgrown institutional structures, designed for six countries in the 1950s. There are 15 countries today and there will be 25 next year, with more to follow. That enlargement is a fantastic achievement, reunifying a Europe bitterly divided by the cold war and extending our zone of peace and security from 370 million people to 560 million. It will create the largest and richest single market in the advanced worldlarger than the world's two biggest economies, America and Japan, combinedproducing more opportunities for Britain: more trade, more jobs and more prosperity. It will also produce a safer, cleaner and better world for British citizens. That is the prize, but to win the prize we must will the means.
	Europe must modernise. It must be more democratic; it must be more efficient; and it must deliver more for its citizens: more and better jobs, a better quality of life, more stability and security, cleaner air and water, and safer food. So under our Government, Britain is engaged enthusiastically in the Convention process, to shape our kind of Europea Europe that is a union of nation states, not a federal superstateand we won the argument hands down.
	Why else were the federalists so unhappy with the outcome? Why else did almost every European commentator, from Le Monde to El Pais, report a good outcome for Britain? The French radio station, RTL, lamented the shaping of a great British Europe. The Belgian newspaper, De Standaard, commented:
	almost nobody seems to be happy with the new constitution apart from Tony Blair.
	The Convention's work was an extraordinary disappointment to leading German federalist MEP Elmar Brok.
	The right hon. Member for Devizes cited President Prodi as part of his case on the European constitution. The president is another leading federalist, and what did he say? He said that the new constitutional treaty is
	in some respects a step backwards.
	It is a funny old world when the only others who have joined the federalists in denouncing the outcome are the Tory Eurosceptics and their friends in the British media, but then they were denouncing the outcome months before they knew what the outcome would betelling plain porkies and frightening people about the end of British civilisation, because they want Britain isolated and out of Europe.
	The truth is that Britain always has been a leading European power, and it stands proudly as one today. Under our Government, we are not isolated, whinging on the fringe. We stand up for Britain's national interests by engaging positively, fighting our corner and shaping the new Europe. Unlike those desperate times when the Tories were in power, the Government have been confident in Europe, confident in our influence, confident in our arguments and confident of winning a good result for Britain.
	When the official Tory representative on the Convention, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), submitted his alternate Tory vision, he could find only six other Convention members prepared to sign up to it. [Hon. Members: So what?] Six out of 204 delegates. Those, like him, who do not want the new constitutional treaty genuinely do not want Britain to be in Europe. He has made it clear that their alternatives are renegotiation or associate membership, but they are vague and ill thought out. Their alternatives effectively represent a ticket out of the EU. They want to reduce Britain to second-class status in Europe.

William Cash: rose

Peter Hain: I think that Britain deserves first-class status. Just as new countries queue up to join, the Tories and the sceptics want Britain to leave. That is madnessand here is one of the maddest.

William Cash: Will the Leader of the House explain why he voted with me on the Third Reading of the Bill that enacted the Maastricht treaty? In other words, he adopted exactly the same position. Will he explain that now?

Peter Hain: There is no way that the constitution is the same as the Maastricht treaty. By the way, the hon. Gentleman voted for a referendum on the Maastricht treaty. The right hon. Member for Devizes voted against a referendum, because the Tory Government denied the people of Britain a referendum on the euro, which came through the Maastricht treaty.
	The madness is also based on Tory porkies and Tory myths. Every time we knock down one myth, they produce another. Look at what the Tories and their tabloid allies have said when fulminating against the draft constitutional treaty in these past few months. They have said that we will give up our veto on tax. We have not, and we will not. They have said that we will have an army run from Brussels. We will not. They have said that we will pick up the bill for Europe's pension black hole. We will not. They have said that we will lose control of our own borders. We will not. They have said that we will be bound to obey a European foreign policy unreservedly. We will not.
	The Tories and their tabloid allies say that the EU will take our seat at the UN. It will not. They say that British citizens will be sent to prison by EU judges. They will not. They say that we will all be forced to be European citizens. We already are European citizens. The Tories agreed to that in the Maastricht treaty, and a good thing tooit gives Britons travelling elsewhere in Europe rights because they are EU citizens. They say that European law will have primacy over national law. Shock, horror, sell-out, betrayal! That has been the case since 1957, under successive treaties endorsed by Tory Governments. They say that the EU will steal our North sea oil. Of course it will not. They also say that the new constitution is a
	blueprint for a Brussels tyranny
	and the
	end of a thousand years of history.
	It is not.
	What is this constitutional treaty really about? It is a simple and clear statement about what Europe is for; its aims and objectives; the rights of its citizens; and the powers and responsibilities of its institutions, which take forward the policies agreed by its member states. It will ensure that, after enlargement, the EU is more efficient, more effective and better able to tackle the issues that no country can solve alone, such as asylum, the environment and economic reform. It offers the prospect of stability in the way that Europe works.
	Contrary to all that Tory and tabloid nonsense, the constitutional treaty will deliver a more democratic Europe, and it makes it clear in its very first article that the Union has only the powers that the member states give it. Let the House dismiss all that Tory prejudice and paranoia that Europe is about fiendish foreigners doing us over. We are confident that in the intergovernmental conference we will get a good result that makes the new Europe better and stronger: a new Europe in which the Government intend Britain to be a strong leader, not a weak whinger. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:
	The House divided: Ayes 359, Noes 164.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House believes that the draft Constitutional Treaty produced by the Convention on the Future of Europe is a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference; agrees that the procedures of an enlarged European Union require reform, and welcomes the commitment of the Convention to a Union which respects the national identities of its Member States and which has only those powers explicitly conferred on it by them; congratulates the UK parliamentary, government and European Parliament representatives on the Convention for their contributions, and notes the valuable work of the relevant parliamentary committees of both Houses; notes the Government's decision to table as a Command Paper Parts I, II and IV; recalls that decisions on what is included in any forthcoming Treaty will be made by unanimity by the elected governments of all EU member states; and reaffirms Parliament's role in scrutinising and approving legislation required to give effect to any future Treaty's provisions.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
	That, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Hunting (Re-committed) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may be awareI hope that you areof a robust exchange of letters that is taking place between my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister in which serious issues of the Prime Minister's integrity are being raised. Would you be prepared, Mr. Speaker, even at this stage, to allow the Prime Minister to come to the House, explain his position and, if necessary, apologise, as his own ministerial code requires him to do, if the outcome of the letters points in that direction? I hope that you will be prepared to be flexible enough to allow the Prime Minister to do that so that the matter may be cleared up before it gets completely out of hand.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a hypothetical matter. I am always prepared to take an approach from any Minister. The right hon. Gentleman opened his remarks by saying that I might know about an exchange of letters. I do not know of any exchange of lettersI have been busy here in the Chamber. The best thing to do is to let the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and the Prime Minister enter into a correspondence course without involving the Speaker. Orders of the Day

Hunting Bill

As amended, on recommital, in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Compensation

'(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make a scheme for the making of payments to persons
	(a) whose business or employment is materially affected (whether by a reduction in profits or the incurring of losses) by reason of the enactment or coming into force of this Act, or
	(b) who are deprived of any services previously provided by hunts and as a result incur and are materially affected by costs, expenses or losses which would not have been incurred but for the enactment or coming into force of this Act.
	(2) A scheme shall, in particular, specify
	(a) the manner in which the losses, costs, expenses or reductions in profits may be calculated, and
	(b) the evidence which may be reasonably required to show the losses, costs, expenses or reductions in profits calculated in accordance with this section.
	(1) A scheme shall also, in particular
	(a) specify the basis of valuation for determining losses,
	(b) specify the amounts of the payments to be made or the basis on which such amounts are to be calculated,
	(c) provide for the procedure to be followed (including the time within which claims must be made and the provisions of information) in respect of claims under the scheme and for the determination of such claims.
	(4) Before making a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to him to be likely to be entitled to payments under such a scheme and such organisations as appear to him to represent such persons.
	(5) Subsection (6) applies to any dispute as to a person's entitlement to payments under a scheme or the amounts of any such payments which
	(a) has not been resolved within nine months of the day on which the original decision as to entitlements or amounts was notified in writing to the person concerned by the Secretary of State, and
	(b) has not been referred by agreement to arbitration.
	(6) The dispute shall be referred by the Secretary of State to such appellate body as he deems appropriate by order.
	(7) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
	(8) In this section
	losses include losses of income and losses of capital;
	materially affected means affected by a reduction in profit or the incurring of losses, costs or expenses which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.'.[Mr. Gray.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

James Gray: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	It seems like less than a weekalthough it is just over a weeksince I stood at the Dispatch Box and decried the absurdity of our wasting parliamentary time talking about hunting yet again. Soldiers are dying in Iraq, the health service is in meltdown and education is in crisis. It speaks volumes about the Minister's priorities that we are wasting time on this ridiculous subject.
	This is a reformed House of Commons in which we rise at seven o'clock on Wednesday evenings. As far as I recall, we have done that, but for the first time we are going late to discuss hunting.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to raise a matter of order, not of controversy. A few minutes ago you called the motion to suspend the seven o'clock rule. Am I right in believing that any hon. Member who thought that we should not have the debate could have called a Division to stop the suspension of the seven o'clock rule? As that was not the case, are not the Conservatives making hypocritical arguments?

Mr. Speaker: What is done is done with regard to the seven o'clock motion. I have called the new clause for debate and the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) to speak to it.

James Gray: That bogus point of order speaks volumes about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It is absurd that for the first time since the reforms, we are in the Chamber after seven o'clockprobably finishing at 11.45 pmso that we can discuss hunting. No other issuehealth, education, foreign affairs, the warhas kept us until midnight on a Wednesday, but here we are discussing hunting. What an absurdity!
	The abolitionists have had their way. They have succeeded in abolishing all forms of hunting, although we intend to challenge that. We are no longer discussing the controversial issues of principlewhether hunting is a good, bad or intermediate thing. The three groups of amendments leave aside the more acrimonious debates that we so often had in the Chamber over the years and address three extremely important consequencespossibly unintentionalof the Bill as drafted. I regret that the truncated time in Committee meant that we were unable to discuss the Bill's structure and the consequences of the way in which it is drafted. So we have tabled amendments that will improve, to a limited extent, how it will work.
	New clause 1 proposes a compensation scheme for those who will lose their livelihoods as a result of the Bill's measures or whose businesses could be seriously affected.

Tony Banks: I am not unsympathetic to the idea of compensation, as I said in Committee, but what figure does the hon. Gentleman have in mind? I assume he has costed it.

James Gray: I shall come to that.
	The new clause lays down who would apply for compensation and the precise way in which it would be calculated. It is not for me to estimate the figure. Surely it is for the House to decide what is right in the context of the Bill, irrespective of the costs. We are not accountants. We are here to legislate on what is right, decent and honourable. That is what the new clause attempts to do.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend find it rich indeed that Labour Members, who support a Bill that will cause job losses in the countryside, are asking the Opposition to come up with a figure for compensation? If the Government cared at all about those in the countryside who are about to lose their livelihoods, surely they would have studied the possible financial impact of the Bill?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. To give the Government some credit, they appointed Lord Burns to consider such matters. They called hearings in Portcullis House for three days to discuss them. The tragedy is that they ignored all the evidence brought before the Minister and replaced it with a totemistic outright ban. They have no idea of the consequences.

Edward Garnier: Is it not regrettable that the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), for whom, on all other occasions, I have the highest respect, has failed to read new clause 1 in its entirety? We have set out the scheme in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5). The amount will depend on the claimant.

James Gray: My hon. and learned Friend is right. The scheme is laid out in detail and it will be a matter of people applying for compensation according to those arrangements.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman find the comments by the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) even more preposterous when we consider that he was given the opportunity to vote for a specific amendment in Committee which prescribed percentages in terms of compensation? It would have done exactly what he criticises the new clause for not doing, and he voted against it. That is typical of his illogical approach.

James Gray: To be fair to the hon. Member for West Ham, he made it plain several times that he believes in the principle of compensating people who are damaged by legislation. That is why I am keen to get away from the old arguments about whether we are in favour of hunting or against it. We lost that argument. We now want to put in place compensation for those people whose livelihoods will be so tragically lost.

Several hon. Members: rose

James Gray: If hon. Members will forgive me, I have taken enough interventions. If I can make a little progress on the meat of my speech, I shall take interventions from a spread of hon. Members. We are in danger of getting too far from the thrust of the new clause.
	Several different groups of people would receive compensation. The first group is relatively obvious. One thing on which we agree is the number of people who are directly employed by hunts. The figure that Lord Burns came up with has not been challenged. He said that about 1,000 are directly employed.

Gerald Kaufman: It is 700.

James Gray: I think the figure was 873, but Lord Burns went on to say that there were more. It is in the order of 1,000. There is no point in getting into an argument about it. There are 350 hunts in Britain. We could easily find out by sending a letter to the hunt yards. I would be happy to accept 700 to 1,000. Let us not get into a silly discussion about the precise number.
	Those people will lose their jobs, houses, livelihoods and way of life. It is only reasonable that they should be compensated.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No. The hon. Gentleman is a Scot; he represents a Scottish seat. That he should dare to come down here and pontificate on English hunting is a scandal and a disgrace. I will not give way to him at all.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about how the Bill deals with people at the lowest end of the pay scale who are employed by the hunt. Is there any reason why the House legislated to give lavish compensation to those who farmed mink, yet will not pay kennel maids who will lose their jobs because of an Act of Parliament?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I shall return to it. There is a precedent in the legislation on mink hunting for paying compensation. As he says, people employed by hunts are at the bottom end of the pay scale in our rural communities. We are not talking about rich people. Those 700 to 1,000 people will lose not only their salaries and income, but their houses and livelihoods. If there is any decency in the House, it is only right that we consider what we can do to help them.

Dominic Grieve: I note that the Bill does not have the imprimatur of any Secretary of State to say that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The intention may be to add that, but at the moment it is not compatible because it does not provide for compensation.

James Gray: There has been an extremely interesting exchange of correspondence between the Committee that considers these matters and the Minister. I hope that the Minister will expand on that later. My hon. Friend is right: there is a large question about whether the Bill is compatible with the Human Rights Act. There is no imprimatur on the Bill at the moment; we hope that it will be added before the Bill leaves this place, but we do not know. Certainly it cannot become law unless and until it is compatible with the Act.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman may recall that we covered this issue in Committee last week, and I pointed out that the appropriate human rights certification was given when the Bill came to the House. The next stage at which certification will be provided is the Bill's introduction to another place, and that will be done in compliance with the requirements of the House authorities.

James Gray: The original certification was given to an utterly different Bill that bears no relation to this one. This Bill will impose an outright ban; every person who hunts in any shape, size or form will be banned from doing so. Under the Bill that the Minister introduced the best part of a year ago, people could have applied for a licence and continued to hunt under certain circumstances if they passed certain tests that he had set. This is an entirely different Bill, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be considering that. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a good point, and we will examine it with great care.

Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend think it extraordinary that this is an Administration who have not been at all slow to provide, at the taxpayer's expense, lavish compensation for Ministers who lose their jobs, yet they do not propose to pay one penny to people who will lose their jobs as a direct result of legislation from this House?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and I think that it would be interesting to know the view of the Lord Chancellor, or the last Lord Chancellor, on that matter. He is living in the lap of luxury, having been given the sack by the Prime Minister. All we want is a little decent compensation for these decent, ordinary people who work for the hunts.

Several hon. Members: rose

James Gray: We are trying to have a debate here, and I will happily give way in a moment, but not while everybody is jumping to their feet all the time, seeking to intervene on daft points. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) says that his point is very important. We look forward to hearing it.

Colin Challen: The important point is that the case for compensation would be far stronger if those people who are about to become unemployed had no suitable alternative that is similar to their existing employment. Clearly, in most cases they have such an alternative: drag hunting. I would argue that more jobs will be created in drag hunting than ever existed in fox hunting.

James Gray: One of the very few points of unanimity in the excellent report by Lord Burns was that under no circumstances, by any stretch of the imagination, could drag hunting possibly replace fox hunting, stag hunting and the rest. The notion that the 1,000 people who are currently employed by the 350 existing hunts could, overnight, be employed in drag hunting, which is a completely different sport that bears no relation to hunting, shows that the hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it and that he has not read the Burns report, which makes that fact perfectly plain.
	A kennel huntsman or a whipper-in, who may well be 40, 50 or 60, will have worked in nothing but hunting for his entire life. There is nothing that he can do apart from hunting with hounds. That is all he knows, and the notion that he could walk out tomorrow and get a job as a clerk in a railway station is absurd. Such people are committed to hunting, and they will be unemployed for a large part of the rest of their lives. It is only reasonable that we consider what compensation we should grant them.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about people losing their livelihoods, but they will also lose their homes. Families with children will be homeless through no fault of their own. [Interruption.]

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. He may not have heard, but from a sedentary position the Parliamentary Private Secretary asked why people should lose their homes. All he need do to find the answer is visit a hunt, and he will discover that many hunt servants live in houses on someone's estate in the countryside. There is no reason why they should continue to live there. Why should they? They are there as servants. Presumably the kennels would have to be sold off, and all kinds of changes would occur. The notion that hunt servants could continue to live near the kennels for all time, without paying, is an absurdity. That shows that the hon. Gentleman, too, has no idea of how things work.

John Gummer: Is it not a display of the usual ignorance to fail to understand that many agricultural tenancies are provided specifically because animals have to be looked after? That is due not to the way in which the hunt is run but to the way in which we have made special arrangements for those who have to look after animals. Labour Members show their ignorance and lack of concern for the countryside in making those comments.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Agricultural ties would prevent a great many of these houses from being used for anyone other than hunt servants or other farming people. There is a reasonable likelihood that a large number of the 750 to 1,000 people whom we are talking about would lose their home and their entire way of life.

David Taylor: As part of the fact finding for an earlier, similar Bill, I visited the Quorn hunt kennels at Kirby Bellars in the constituency of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan). In saying that hunt servants know, and could do, no other job, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is being rather condescending and patronising about their skills. Of course they could do other jobs, and they would probably be in more enjoyable occupations, and with better pay, than they have at the moment.

James Gray: I fear that the hon. Gentleman's intervention does not deserve a proper response. Of course these people will find other jobs. Many of them are extremely skilled with horses and other animals, and in other ways; but if the hon. Gentleman knows anything about the countryside, he will know that, at the moment, there are not an awful lot of jobs available with dogs, horses and other animals. The notion that all 1,000 of them could get a new job tomorrow is frankly absurd, and I will not dignify it with any more of a response.

Henry Bellingham: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

James Gray: I am seeking to move on to the more substantial point about new clause 1, but I happily give way.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. My local hunt, the West Norfolk, made it clear that if hunting were banned it would have to sell the attached kennels and cottages because the raison d'tre for those houses would go.
	On drag hunting, does my hon. Friend agree that much of the hunting in this country is carried out by beagle or basset hounds, and obviously one cannot hunt a drag on foot, so surely the comment by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen) shows the sheer ignorance of Labour Members?

James Gray: My hon. Friend is entirely right about drag hunting. There is no way one could replace hare hunting or other forms of foot hunting, in the uplands for example, with drag hunting. That is an absurdity. Many packs could not be replaced by drag hunting.
	More important, at the moment, throughout England in particular, many farmers will allow the hunt on to their land because they like it, but they are not about to let a lot of gentry gallop across their land for a drag huntthat is, apart from a very small number who may earn money as a result. There would be nothing like 350 drag hunts to replace the existing hunts, and anybody who thinks that there would be is quite wrong. In Wiltshire, there are eight or nine packs of hounds, and there is no possibility that the county would maintain the same number of drag hound packs. As I said, one of the things that Lord Burns was absolutely clear about is that there is no question of replacing hunting with drag hunting. They are two entirely different sports, and they bear no relation to each other.

Kate Hoey: As there seems to be so much ignorance in certain parts of the House about dogs that hunt, would it not be useful for some of the Members who have been sitting here all evening to go across to the green and talk to the many families and owners of hunting dogs there? They might learn just a bit about what hunting dogs do.

James Gray: The hon. Lady is exactly right, and I pay tribute to the many people who are in Parliament square with their hounds and hunting dogs of all varieties. It would be instructive for hon. Members to go and find out a little more about that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, whose courage and determination on this issue is second to none and worthy of our respect.

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points, but I would like him to set the record straight about something that he said earlier. He said that we had lost the argument. We have not lost the argument; we have lost the vote.

James Gray: I certainly hope that I did not say that, but I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. If I said that we had lost the argument, I certainly did not mean to. In the last 12 months in which I have been involved in the issue, we have won every argument in the Chamber and in Committee. The person who has lost every argument and who has been humiliated by his own Back Benchers is the Minister, who has sought to put his arguments but been voted down by his Back-Bench colleagues on every occasion. He has lost not only the arguments but the votes.

Russell Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: No, certainly not to the hon. Gentleman.
	New clause 1 ranges beyond the question of compensating

Russell Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fully appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman can give way to whomsoever he wishes, but I would be grateful for a ruling from the Chair. Is it not a fact that each and every Member of the House has equal status and standing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The only ruling that I will give from the Chair is that the hon. Gentleman is precisely rightit is for the Member who has the floor to decide whether to give way.

James Gray: On a point of principle, may I make it plain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will give way to as many hon. Members who represent English and Welsh constituencies as possible, but I will not give way to Members who represent Scottish constituencies? They can go to Holyrood and pontificate about hunting in Scotland if they wish, but they cannot come here and pontificate about hunting in my constituency, which is a matter only for English and Northern Irish MPs.

David Burnside: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that most of us in the United Kingdom, and certainly the majority of elected representatives from Northern Ireland, are against the draconian ban on hunting, and wish to speak in support of our fellow countrymen in England and Wales to try to prevent this disastrous ban.

James Gray: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A few minutes ago, the hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to make progress on new clause 1. May I suggest to him and the whole House that we do just that?

James Gray: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of your response to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Brown), may I draw your attention to clause 16, and ask how it relates to Northern Ireland? On what basis of equity can the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) give way to a Northern Ireland Member but not to a Scottish Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These are not matters that we should be debating at the moment. Our debate is time-limitedwe are simply wasting time and should get on with new clause 1.

James Gray: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as I want to press on with the wider consequences of new clause 1.
	Proposed subsection (1) deals with compensation for hunt employees, for which there is an obvious need. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree about the need for a compassionate interest in such people.
	New clause 1, however, seeks to introduce wider compensation. Hunting and industries associated with it play a central role in many rural communities and, thanks to manufacturing, many urban constituencies as well. Walsall, for example, is the heart of English saddle manufacturing, and will be devastated by the abolition of hunting because the English saddle manufacturing industry will be wrecked.

David Winnick: rose

James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make progress[Interruption.] I beg his pardon, he represents Walsall, so I shall give way.

David Winnick: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a spokesperson for the industry told the local paper last week that it would not be devastated in the locality, and that in fact it has far more extensive work than it used to have? Should he not have done his homework before mentioning my borough and getting his facts wrong?

James Gray: I have indeed done my homework. Not only have I had conversations with the other Walsall MP, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is extremely concerned about the consequences of a ban for Walsall, but I have had a great many conversations with BETAthe British Equestrian Trade Associationwhich has had detailed discussions with saddle manufacturers in Walsall. BETA is concerned about claims by Walsall manufacturers that they will be badly hit by a ban on hunting. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) knows his constituents better than I do, but BETA, which represents saddle manufacturers, has made those comments, and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Walsall, South, is deeply concerned about the consequences of a ban for the town.

Stephen O'Brien: On that point and the question of compensation, especially for people not directly employed by hunts, it is not apparent how the new clause would affect Wycherley's, a saddlery in Malpas supplied by a Walsall firm that has already closed because of the reduction of interest and investment in hunting and fears about what may happen. Is it true that compensation could be backdated to before the ban on hunting because of the anticipated consequences of the ban?

James Gray: One of the provisions in new clause 1 would indeed invite applicants for compensation to specify when they started to lose their business. Compensation could be backdated to a period before a ban came into effect if it could be demonstrated that that was when people stopped buying saddles.

Rob Marris: rose

James Gray: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to move off page one and on to page two.
	Compensation should be available not just to saddle manufacturers but to farriers everywherethe farriery trade would be decimated. Clothing manufacturers, livery yards and grooms should also be eligible. Many livery yards in areas such as the west country depend on hunting and will not survive its abolition. The wider horse industry is affected. Many second-grade horsesnot race horsesare kept purely for hunting, and would not be maintained if there was no hunting. Feed merchants, vets and veterinary medicine suppliers will be affected by the Bill. As Burns acknowledges, as many as 14,000 people in England owe their livelihoods to hunting. A ban would be devastating, especially in large parts of the west country and elsewhere, where large communities are wholly dependent on hunting.
	Irrespective of what one thinks about hunting, and regardless of whether one likes it, if the Bill becomes lawwe hope that it will notmany people will face devastation, so it is only reasonable that the Government should compensate them.
	Farmers are another group who should be compensated under new clause 1, as the ban will have a devastating effect on them. There is bound to be a huge increase in predation on farmers' livestock. I shall quote briefly from a letter from the National Farmers Union, which says:
	The NFU believes that the moment should not pass without drawing attention to the serious threat which this legislation represents to the ability of farmers to protect their livestock and crops from pests, and the significant additional costs and difficulties it would bring to the struggling agricultural industry. Farmers regard this as a disastrous and ill-founded approach which will be damaging to them, to the interests of the countrysideand not least to the cause of animal welfare.
	It goes on to point out:
	As at least 17m lambs are born every year in England and Wales, farmers can be forgiven for finding it hard to agree that the loss of some 340,000 of them to foxes at a cost to the industry of over 13.6m should be regarded as not significant.
	The Minister based his judgment on lambs, but Burns, according to the NFU, found that
	predation by foxes on poultry is potentially catastrophic because foxes can indulge in surplus killing.
	Moreover, the loss of piglets to foxes is almost certainly growing because of the large increase in the number of outdoor units and outdoor farrowing.
	A ban would therefore have significant consequences for farming, which the Government will ignore unless they accept the logic of new clause 1. There is another problem for farmers. Hunts provide an essential service in the collection of fallen stock. Last year, it is estimated that 400,000 carcases were collected from farms in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. What will happen now? The Government first came up with a half-baked idea for a national carcase collection scheme, but that seems to have bitten the dust. They do not know what will happen to fallen stock in the coming year, and if hunts are banned there will serious consequences across the countryside, not only for the farmers but for those who pick up the problemperhaps local authorities or even the Government themselves. Government must therefore consider what to do about fallen stock.

John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend remind the House that the Government asked the hunts to help in the removal of fallen stock, as they were an important part of such a service? This is the only country in the European Union that, because of the Department's incompetence, has not yet found a satisfactory way of dealing with the relevant legislation.

James Gray: My right hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There are 350 hunt kennels evenly spread across England. They would have served as a natural collection point for carcases, had it not been for Labour's ideological hatred of hunts. They would have taken the remains to the renderers, and incinerators could have been improved to deal with those remains. Because the Labour party hates hunting so vehemently, it will not even make proper use of those kennels, which is disappointing.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend will be aware that not only the farmers who make use of the fallen stock service provided by hunts but a lot of individual pony and horse owners will be hit hard. The other day, I received a letter from a constituent whose pony died, after which the hunt came to remove the dead animal. What will happen to such people? Many ponies and horses will simply not be collected.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right. There is a great tradition in this country. What will happen to the carcases of horses and ponies? Who will pay for them to be carted off to a knacker's yard, which may be situated many miles away? The Minister has not told us; perhaps he will do so later.
	There is a wider point, which we will return to, in respect of the second group of amendments: how long the Government intend to take to implement the ban. The Bill currently proposes three months, although we have tabled an amendment proposing an extension to 12 months to allow proper implementation. I hope that the Minister will see that allowing a reasonable period between Royal Assent and final implementation would help rural businesses to adjust and prepare for the most damaging effects of the ban. If the ban were to be introduced immediately, a substantial problem would have to be overcome in the countryside. It would be sensible to have a reasonable period before implementation.

Peter Luff: On the ban's commencement and the question of compensation, will my hon. Friend clarify whether the new clause, which I support, would cover the destruction of the 100,000 hunting dogs that will have to be put down in very short order if hunting is banned? I am worried that it may not cover that process, which will be very distressing and expensive for the hunts concerned.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Yes, the new clause would indeed pay for the destruction of those hounds and dogs.
	I think that Labour Members have not yet properly considered the fact that there are about 26,000 foxhounds alone. Those animals have no other purpose in life than hunting foxes and could not, in the pathetic expression that is often used, be re-homed. There is no way in which a foxhound could be re-homed. These are pack animals; they live in kennels in many hundreds and are trained for a particular purpose. If hunting were banned, neither the hunts nor anybody else could continue to maintain them. Some 26,000 foxhounds alone would have to be killed, and other dogs and hounds would be affected. The number may well be as great as 100,000, and I shall speak about the Kennel Club's attitude to this matter in a moment.

Gregory Barker: We know that this Government are inherently mean when it comes to country people. Does my hon. Friend agree that financial compensation alone will not be enough to cover the distress of those who work with the hounds? The kennel men and other hunt servants who know all the hounds by name and have nurtured them and brought them up since they were puppies will have to stand by and watch them be slaughtered en masse. The blood of those hounds will be on the hands of this Government, who are dog haters.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is right that Labour Members' names will engraved on the hearts of people who love their houndsthere is no question about thatbut under the new clause we are seeking to work out a sensible compensation regime in respect of the financial losses that they will face. I fear that he was right to say that there can be no such thing as financial compensation for the terrible pain that they will feel.

Rob Marris: The new clause, to which the hon. Gentleman has just returned and which deals with compensationan issue with which I have some sympathy as a general ruleis merely an example of grandstanding, as he has chosen not to table an amendment allowing for a money resolution. The Bill would therefore be nonsense if the new clause were to be passed, as he well knows. He is merely grandstanding.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman made useful, interesting and legalistic contributions throughout the Committee stage and I thank him for doing so. That was another such contribution. I hope that, when the new clause is agreed, the Government will take steps to amend the money resolution satisfactorily so that it can become law.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but the middle way group has resubmitted the appropriate money resolution. More to the point, if Labour Members were really so concerned about compensation, why did so many of them vote in favour of eliminating the money resolution on recommittal?

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point.
	Finally, I should like to mention a precedent for the payment of suitable compensation. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) mentioned the very good precedent of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000. It is a very good precedent because Labour Members, and I suspect hon. Members in all parts of the House, concluded that they disliked fur farming for moral or ethical reasons. They believed that it was a bad thing, although it is rather odd that they did not stop people wearing or trading fur in the United Kingdom. None the less, they prevented farmers from farming it. As the House concluded that fur farming was a wicked thing to do, it felt it necessary to compensate fur farmers for having taken the decision.
	There is a direct and exact parallel in respect of hunting. I do not believe that hunting is immoral. I believe that it is absolutely justifiable in a variety of different ways, but hon. Members indicated in their vote last week that they believe it to be wrong and wicked, for some reason known only to themselves. Surely there is a direct parallel, and it is only reasonable for them to seek to compensate the people who are involved in hunting for the loss of their livelihoods. In the light of that precedent, why should the Government not consider compensating, at the very least, the people who are directly employed by hunts, as well as, consequentially, people who are associated with them? Lord Burns accepted that point. He stated:
	In the event of a ban on hunting, consideration would need to be given to possible action in respect of the fallen stock service provided by many hunts and to whether there would be a case for compensation if hounds had to be destroyed and hunts had no further use for the kennels.
	He went on to expand on that point in a variety of ways.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred to the European convention on human rights. I believe that that could offer an angle and I hope that the Minister will properly address the point, and not merely by saying that it is has been dealt with. We would like to know exactly what correspondence he has had with the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about whether the Bill is truly compatible with the convention and whether, without compensation, there may be a flaw in the provisions. We would like to hear from him precisely what legal advice he has so far received on that subject and why he is so confident about it.
	Whatever hon. Members may think of hunting people and hunting, and whatever their views may be, we have gone past that argument. That was an argument for previous debates and it will no doubt be one for Third Reading. What we are discussing now is whether those people who will, without question, lose their livelihoods deserve a degree of compassion from this House. I believe that they do. This is a Government decision over which they have no control at all. Compassion for beleaguered minorities, which often seems to be in short supply on the Labour Benches these days, seems to me to be what this House is all about.
	I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House to cast aside their ideological objections to hunting and not to think about them for a moment, as they are not what we are talking about. We are talking about the livelihoods and happiness of hundreds or thousands of people in the countryside.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend's new clause gives me some cause for concern, as it would provide considerable discretion to the Secretary of State. Proposed subsections (5) and (6) provide for an appeal. Will he confirm that an appeal to the appellate body could relate not only to the amount of compensation but to the principles involved, in case the Secretary of State should get it wrong?

James Gray: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I am certain that he is right in what he suggests.
	I ask the Labour party to show people in the countryside the same compassion as we showed in Committee. It is with a heavy heart that I quote the Minister's response when we raised the question of compensation in the last sitting of the first Standing Committee on the Bill:
	Certainly those who are made redundant have certain statutory entitlements: they are entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative employment. There are opportunities for training . . . There can be no rights to compensation that rely on allowing people to be cruel . . . I am advised that there is no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay compensation to those who may be affected by the Bill.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 27 February 2003; c. 125657.]
	I say to the Minister that there may or may not be a legal requirement to pay compensation, but there is no shadow of a doubt that there is a very strong moral requirement to do so.
	I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in supporting new clause 1.

Alun Michael: I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) acknowledge, I thought rather graciously, that he had lost the argument about the principle of hunting with dogs. I hope that that will be reflected in the remainder of the debate and in the actions and attitudes of his colleagues in another place. He said that this was a completely different Bill, which is not what he said a week ago.

Hugo Swire: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I shall do so in a moment or two; let me at least get started.
	As I said in Committee, I am confident that there is no problem in relation to the European convention on human rights or our legislation in that regard. Of course, the next point at which certification comes is on introduction to the House of Lords.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment.
	Before I start to give way to hon. Members who wish to intervene, I make the general point that the current employment situation in rural areas has improved in terms of the number of people in employmentmore so, in many rural areas, than in urban areas that have benefited from the policies of this Government. It is with that in mind that I turn to the issue of compensation.

Hugo Swire: The Minister repeated the accusation that my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that we had lost the argument. If he did say that, he subsequently retracted it and said that we had not lost the argument, merely the vote. No one outside this building believes that we have lost the argument.

Alun Michael: I refute that utterly. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said it not once, but twice, and he had to be invited by a Back Bencher to retract it. I know about winning the argument and losing the vote: that is different from what the hon. Gentleman has said throughout these debates.

Dominic Grieve: I want to move the Minister away from trite points to a matter that is fairly fundamental. At some point this evening, he will invite me to vote on the Third Reading of a Bill that does not have the imprimatur of the Secretary of State that it is compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. I have serious reservations about that, and the Minister owes it to the House to explain in some detail why he considers that it is so compatible.

Alun Michael: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the relevant debates in Committee. For instance, the Deadline 2000 Bill on a complete ban was certified as compatible.

David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House would benefit from your guidance on whether the point made by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) would be more appropriate to the Third Reading debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we should simply proceed with the debate: all these points of order take up far too much time.

Alun Michael: Parliamentary procedure requires that a Minister of the Crown in charge of a Bill in either House must make a statement on compliance before its Second Reading. We did that on introducing the Bill to this House.

James Gray: This is a different Bill.

Alun Michael: It is not: it is a Bill that has been amended by this House. This House amends many Bills, and many differ at this stage of their passage through the House from the precise form in which they were introduced. The Bill remains a Government Bill, and it remains compliant. That will be certified in time for Second Reading in the Lords. Other comparable Bills have been certified. I remind hon. Members of the challenges mounted by the Countryside Alliance in relation to the Scottish legislation. It has had no success at all in trying to promote the concept that Conservative Members are trying to bring to this House. There is no foundation to the points that they are making: they are specious.

John Gummer: The right hon. Gentleman says that this is the same Bill. The Bill that was introduced into the House of Commons did not ban hunting: it licensed it. This Bill bans hunting: it is therefore a completely different Bill. My authority for that is that the right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Bill that he introduced was not to ban hunting. The fact is that he is now introducing another Bill, and he should be ashamed of himself for so doing.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for advancing such a specious argument. The Bill that was introduced included the banning of certain activities, the exemption of other activities, and a system of registration allowing certain other exemptions to apply. The Bill that we have now

David Cameron: rose

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman should contain himself at least until I reach a comma or a full stop.
	The Bill that we have now still includes the banning of some activities and the exemption of others, and has been shown to be compliant with human rights legislation when similar legislation has come before the House. I therefore refute what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire says. I understand that he is trying to construct an argument to undermine the Bill, but that is not a wise course of action.

James Gray: The Minister says that it is the same Bill. How, then, does he explain a letter from himself to the Deputy Prime Minister, dated 14 May, in which he says that
	a 'complete ban' amendment would destroy the architecture of the Bill, undermine the strong, simple framework of enforcement that is set out in the Bill and be perceived as pursuing prejudice rather than targeting cruelty which is totally banned by the Bill as it stands.
	How does the Minister explain that, given that he now tells us that it is the same Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister responds, I cannot see how these exchanges relate in any way to new clause 1. I should be grateful if the Minister would now relate his remarks to the new clause.

Dominic Grieve: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am mindful of what you say, but we have to make a decision about whether the Bill is salvageable in accordance with the Human Rights Act. Surely, therefore, the question of whether the Bill has been entirely changed is highly pertinent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made that point more than once. My job is to ensure that we address new clause 1, and I ask the Minister to do so.

Alun Michael: I merely say that the Bill is compliant and that that will be certified at the appropriate stage of the processes that I described. I must now comply with your injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	Under new clause 1, compensation would be paid to all those whose livelihoods would be affected as a result of the ban on activities such as fox hunting, deer hunting, mink hunting and hare coursing events. The proposed scheme would be extraordinarily wide-rangingthose entitled to compensation would include any business or employment affected by the Bill, and it would apply to the loss of any service currently provided by hunts. New clause 1 is clearly based on the equivalent compensation provisions in section 5 of the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, but whereas that Act resulted in the payment of compensation to about a dozen fur farmers who were directly prevented from carrying out their existing businesses, the number of people who might have grounds to claim under new clause 1 would be impossible to determine or predict. It is impossible to be more precise than that, because the terms of the proposed scheme are drawn so widely and so vaguely. Anyone who is materially affected by the ban on hunting could claim compensation; and materially affected is defined in subsection (8) in such a way as to mean affected in any way
	which may be measured by ordinary principles of commercial accountancy.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I ask all hon. Members to note that I shall happily give way, but I would prefer to do it at the end of a sentence or a thought.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister's last comments worry me a little. He suggests that if only a small number of people are to be compensated, the Government think that that is all right, but if there might be many such people, they think that it is a bad idea. I think that he will agree that that is not what the Human Rights Act is all about. The reason why the Government chose to compensate fur farmers was that they knew that if they did not do so it would be incompatible with human rights legislation.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman demonstrates my point brilliantly. If he had waited for me to finish my point, he would have heard me explain the difference between this Bill and the fur farming legislation, by which fur farmers were directly prevented from carrying on their businesses.

Rob Marris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that new clause 1 is so ridiculously widely drawn that someone who was made redundant by the League Against Cruel Sports would be able to claim under it, which would be nonsensical?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend may be right. If I were in those circumstances, I should like to have him as an advocate because he is always inventive about the application of the law.

Lembit �pik: It is disturbing that the Minister now claims that the amendment might be acceptable if it were more tightly drafted. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I tabled an amendment in Committee. It stated:
	The Secretary of State shall pay compensation to those who lose their employment owing to a ban on hunting . . . The compensation will be equivalent to one year's lost remuneration and 100 per cent. of the assets that are lost on account of this Act.
	That is close to what the Minister claims that he would accept. Why did he vote against it?

Alun Michael: I said no such thing. One of the strengths of the House is hon. Members' ability to intervene and allow a Minister to respond to the specific thoughts of colleagues. One of the weaknesses is that one does not get through the logical, successive points that one wants to make.
	For example, let us consider the horse industry. One of the chief excitements of traditional hunting is the ride. People like hunting because they love charging across the countryside. They enjoy being in the countryside, pursuing the activity. Some tell me that they hardly ever see a fox or the hounds. I cannot believe that people will stop riding simply because they cannot hunt. Some may, but generally the desire to ride in the countryside will not go away. The demand for horses, stabling, farriers and others who work in that industry will not decline. The horse industry is healthy and growing. Changing the law on hunting will have only a minimal effect on it.

Colin Challen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that horse riding in the countryside that is not associated with cruelty will improve the chances of people who live in the countryside to develop businesses that are based around horses and horse riding? Does he also agree that tourism will grow by getting rid of the moral debasement of rural affairs because more people will be inclined to go to the countryside?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point about the attractions.

David Taylor: My right hon. Friend the Minister rightly referred to trends in recent years that show an increase in equestrian activity and those employed in the equestrian industry. Is it not possible that that rate of growth would accelerate if equestrian activities were decoupled from the stigma of hunting?

Alun Michael: That should be encouraged. We are considering a growth industry in which many people participate. The Government strongly support horse riding and a variety of other sports and leisure activities that are associated with it.
	Let us consider dogs, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire mentioned earlier. He described the Burns report as an excellent report. It states:
	It is common, but not universal, practice for hounds belonging to the registered packs to be put down after some six or seven years' hunting, when they are considered to have reached the end of their working lives. The Countryside Alliance estimated that the Masters of Foxhounds Association puts down approximately 3,000 hounds a year.
	Working dogs are often put down when they can no longer perform the tasks that are required of them. It further stated that it would be prudent of dog owners to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. The RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds. Hon. Members should take note of the Burns report.

Tony Banks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point because Opposition Members are tearing at our heart strings, when the facts that he mentioned are little known throughout the country. Will he also add that young hounds are destroyed if they do not show the necessary proclivity for hunting? We do not know the numbers because they do not have to be registered.

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Several such matters should be included in any argument about the future of dogs.

Edward Garnier: I am not clear whether the Minister objects to new clause 1 in principle and believes that no compensation should be paid in any circumstances to anyone who suffers a loss through the ban on hunting or whether the argument is Treasury driven, and based on the fact that the number of people and therefore the amount of money is undefinable. On which side of the see-saw does the Minister sit?

Alun Michael: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a fair point. I am responding to the muddled nature

David Cameron: Will the Minister give way?

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: Not for a moment. I shall certainly not give way to anyone who tries to intervene in the middle of a sentence.
	The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a fair point about the principles. I can do no better than cite the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) when he was Minister of State at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 1996. I note that his name is not on the new clause, although he has added it to other amendments. He said:
	The long-standing public policy on compensation is clear . . . when an individual is deprived of his property, fair compensation for that deprivation, subject to any overriding circumstances in the public interest, is properly due . . . It has, however, also been a long-standing matter of settled public policy that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decisions. [Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.]

Alan Beith: I am worried that the Minister has moved from arguing that the clause is too wide and that too much compensation would have to be paid to contending that the activities can largely continue without hunting and that there is therefore no problem. I do not understand that. However, I want him to clarify his argument of principle. He said that there can be no rights to compensation that depend on allowing people to be cruel. How does he square that with reaching the conclusion that he could present a proposal for licensed and limited hunting? He must have accepted that that was not inherently cruel.

Alun Michael: That is absolutely not the case. Let me correct the right hon. Gentleman. The point of the original Bill was to distinguish activities that were cruel and unnecessary and could be done in a way that involved less suffering. The House took the view that all hunting of foxes was in that category. I am sure that hon. Members who voted for that made a judgment about the element of cruelty involved.
	A moment's thought will show that the proposed scheme is impractical and unworkable. I am dealing with it on the basis of principle and practicality. On loss of employment, it may be relatively easy to identify those who are directly employed by the hunts, although even Burns was unable to get an exact number for those people. That suggests some ambiguity. At Portcullis House, we heard evidence that suggested that Burns overestimated the numbers. Others might claim to be in the position of losing their jobs as a result of a ban, especially if there were generous compensation on offer. What about a farrier who depends on hunt activity for 30 per cent. of current business? As a consequence of reduced turnover, he could decide to lay off a member of staff. Determining the amount of compensation would be complex.
	Secondly, it is claimed that business turnover may be affected by a ban on hunting. That may be the case, but it would vary.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister give way? He has reached the end of a sentence.

Alun Michael: Some, if not most of the business assets could be reutilised or an alternative business could be created. I shall consider some of those points shortly. However, given the good punctuation of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), I shall give way to him.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister accepts that some people will lose their jobs and livelihoods. There is a need for some form of compensation. Whatever his view of the new clause, will he ensure that a compensation clause, even a more tightly drawn clause, is introduced in another place?

Alun Michael: I have stated my position on the principle and shown it to be one that has been settled by different parties in Government over the years. But we have to deal with issues of practicality in considering the new clause, which has been chosen by the Opposition. The amount of money that could be paid out, particularly in relation to assets, appears to be open-ended and unknown, and the cost to the taxpayer of just the administration of such a scheme would be huge and unjustifiable.
	In addition, there is no provision to require people affected to take steps to mitigate their losses. There is no incentive for people to diversify, whether into drag hunting or other equestrian activities, or to apply their skills to related tasks, such as dealing with the disposal of fallen stock. There is a business opportunity there. I take this opportunity to correct something that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire said. He suggested that the Government had asked hunts to help. What actually happened was that the Government indicated those disposal businesses that take fallen stock, which include hunts. That is a quite different thing from seeking help.

Dominic Grieve: Again the Minister rather alarms me. He comes to the Dispatch Box and says, As we are dealing only with new clause 1, I am giving the answer. I have never heard that happen before on Report. Usually, if the Minister disagrees with the detail of an amendment tabled on Report but realises that a legitimate point is being made, he will go away and think about it and come up with an amendment of his own, and then the original amendment is withdrawn. Are we to have this charade, with the Minister coming to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has closed his mind to the new clause because he does not agree with the details even though he accepts the principle?

Alun Michael: We seemed to have something of a charade on the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention when he ignored the second half of the sentence because it did not suit him. Now he appears not to have heard the quotation from a Conservative Minister about the basic principles in relation to compensation. I dealt with the points of principle; I am now dealing with the practicalities of the new clause.

David Heath: Dealing purely with practicalities, the Minister just touched on the issue of fallen stock, and I should like to know, because it will affect a large number of people in my constituency, a livestock farming area, what the Government intend to do about the lack of facilities for fallen stock. The situation will reach a crisis in a short period of time, and it is no good wishing there to be renderers and incinerators within a space of three months, because they simply will not be there.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall touch only briefly on this, otherwise I shall quickly be called to order. The Government came forward with an extremely well thought out and generous scheme for farmers that would have worked had 50 per cent. of farmers signed up. Given that about 34 per cent. signed up, which in the long term farmers will see to have been a mistake, considerable effort is going in to modifying that scheme while retaining its financial viability. But to suggest that there are no facilities to deal with the disposal of fallen stock is not correct.

Lembit �pik: Is the Minister at least considering introducing some form of new clause or amendment in the other place to allow some form of compensation even on the more restricted lines that he says? It is reasonable to ask that question and it is fair to expect the Minister to tell us whether he is considering it.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman asks the question in a reasonable way. I am not considering the introduction of a means of compensation because I have not heard arguments that justify the case, which the hon. Gentleman made in Committee and in which he believes. There is a difference of judgment between us, but I hope that he will accept that it is a matter of judgment rather than principle.

David Cameron: The Minister prayed in aid earlier the ban on fur farming, in which case some people were specifically put out of work by a piece of legislation. Under this legislation, some people, such as huntsmen and those who work in kennels, are specifically being put out of work. Will he therefore consider a compensation scheme? Are not the two cases analogous? How can he argue otherwise?

Alun Michael: No, the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I refer him again to the statement made by the hon. Member for Banbury. He said:
	It has . . . been a long-standing matter of settled public policy
	in other words, not just pulled out of the air
	that no Government are under any obligation to pay compensation to a business for any loss of opportunity of carrying on that business which may arise from Parliament's properly considered legislative decision.[Official Report, 13 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 287.]
	What is appropriate and has been regarded as appropriate in the past is something such as the fur farming legislation where a total industry was closed down, or where equipment or items have been confiscated.

Adrian Flook: As the Minister knows, I speak for many in the Exmoor communities who are gravely worried about what a ban on deer hunting would do to the numbers of deer on Exmoor and the knock-on effects that that will probably have on tourism. We have discussed the possibility of a deer management scheme, but if there is no compensation what financial help will be provided to alleviate the problems caused by a ban on deer hunting in my constituency?

Alun Michael: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have supported working with the deer industry and the entire community on deer management. Part of the problem on Exmoor has been a certain unwillingness to engage with this issue on the part of those who regard deer management as an alternative to hunting, and who are reluctant for hunting to end. I understand their reluctance, but a proper deer management scheme and proper recognition of the place of deer in the community is the right way forward. That is what has happened in other parts of the country and, indeed, in Scotland.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire).

Hugo Swire: In his original Bill, the Minister had obviously earmarked some fundsnot least for his registration scheme, and for animal welfare groups that were to be encouraged to challenge every single application for registration, and which were to have their legal costs met by the taxpayer. In the new Bill, will the Minister consider earmarking some of that money, out of the kindness of his heart, as a hardship fund for those people who genuinely will lose their jobs and not find other employment?

Alun Michael: When any industry is restructured, there are those who are permanently affected and others who are not. Systems exist in the public domainprovided through the Employment Service and other support available to those who have become unemployedthat are much more efficient, effective and generous than those provided under the previous Government.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George).

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has dealt with the drafting of new clause 1 and prayed in aid a previous Conservative Minister's interpretation of its fundamental principle. That interpretation is a matter of judgment, with which I disagree. In the light of the intervention of the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), will the Minister tell us what budget his Department estimated would have been required to support the previous Bill?

Alun Michael: It was in the order of millions of pounds, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate. We discussed that issue in Committee, and although there would have been some variation, depending on the final decision of the House, it was certainly some several million pounds.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: As I have said, another flaw in new clause 1 is the provision on compensation arrangements, which suggests that in dealing with an appeal the applicant should nominate a particular body if they are not satisfied. In respect of the fur farming legislation, the body in question was the Lands Tribunal, but the situation here is not at all clear. Will the body in question be a new one or an existing one? However, I should make it clear that what is more important than the practicality of these issuesdeeply flawed though the proposals are in that regardis the principle underlying the Government's policy of not providing compensation. Some hunts' turnover is small, but that of others is large.

Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In a momentlet me make a little progress first. Large businesses can be expected to look after their staff, but that is not to say that the public sector will not play its part. And as with others who are affected by legislation or changes in business, anyone who is made redundant will have statutory entitlements to benefits. Anyone in that position is entitled to use the Employment Service to find alternative work. Those in rural areas who cannot easily get to a jobcentre can access such services by post or phone, and in some cases outreach facilities may be made available.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose

Alun Michael: The new deal for young people and work-based learning for adults provide training opportunities for those who want to acquire new skills to let them compete for jobs. [Interruption.] I am not sure why opportunities to retrain and to contribute to society and the economy are being mocked so enthusiastically by Opposition Members. Let me make it clear that hunt employees are precisely that: they are employees of individual hunts, and it is open to those hunts, if they decide not to go in for drag hunting or similar activities, to offer their staff redundancy payments.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

Kate Hoey: The Minister said that compensation was provided for the fur industry because it was being ended. Can he explain to the House what part of the hunting industry is left?

Alun Michael: In fact, compensation for the fur industry was very limited, and if my hon. Friend wants to make that comparison she ought to look at the detail of the relevant legislation. It was quite limited, based on the principles that I have indicated, in the practical ways that it applied.
	The fact is that all sorts of changessome the result of the marketplace, some the consequence of what we decide in Parliamentaffect businesses, but they do not automatically lead to or merit compensation. In the past, compensation has been paid to those who, as a consequence of legislation, have been deprived of their property. I underline that point, because it was agreed by both main parties when they were in government. The most notable recent example is the firearms compensation scheme, which was put in place as a result of the legislation that followed the tragedy at Dunblane. Again, both parties adopted a similar approach when in government. We have not generally paid compensation from public funds to those who may have lost their livelihoods as a result of legislation. We believe that going down that route would set an unfortunate precedent.

Gregory Barker: I want to draw the Minister back to his monstrous and misleading statement about dogs in the hunting community. We all know that every year, tens of thousands of much-loved and cared for family pets are taken to the vets to have their lives ended unnaturallyto be destroyed because it is judged to be the most humane thing to do. Will the Minister go out into Parliament Square and explain to the owners of dogs and hounds there why it makes no difference whether their hounds are destroyed at the age of only one, two, three, four or five when they are still in the prime of their lives or at the ages of six, seven or eight when they finally come to the end of their useful working lives? The Minister knows that there is absolutely no moral similarity in the position. He is proposing mass genocide of dogs and he knows it.

Alun Michael: I would advise the hon. Gentleman to examine his terminology and consider whether it is appropriate, in the light of the normal usage of such language, in this context. The hon. Gentleman had probably wandered out of the Chamber when I quoted precisely what Lord Burns said about the 3,000 hounds a year that are put down at the age of six or sevennot exactly in their old age.

Several hon. Members: rose

Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a member of a religion that was literally subjected to genocide, I take grave exception to the frivolous use of that word by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker)?

Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend says explicitly what I was gently hinting to the hon. Gentleman. It is indeed wise if hon. Members do not exaggerate by their use of language the important issues with which we are now dealing in the House.

Gregory Barker: I appreciate that genocide may not be the right word, but what word would the Minister attach to the slaughter en masse of 26,000 hounds, or possibly even 100,000 of them?

Alun Michael: I take the hon. Gentleman back to the precise words of Lord Burns, whom Conservative Members are fond of quoting when it suits them. He said that it would be
	prudent of owners of the dogs to plan for the eventuality of a ban on hunting. I understand that the RSPCA has offered to give advice on finding new homes for hounds.
	I suggest that Conservative Members, instead of making histrionic contributions to the debate, pay attention to what Lord Burns said.
	I have dealt with the issues of principle as well as the practical obstacles to accepting the new clause, which I urge the House not to accept.

Andrew George: I am not generally in favour of encouraging a compensation culture in which people who experience a loss feel that they can claim against anyone other than themselves. Fundamentally, it is right for the House to look askance at a general trend in that direction. The Minister attempted to deal with the principle, but I am not sure that he did so entirely. After all, we are talking about something that is not an act of God, but an Act of Parliament. The Minister prayed in aid the former Conservative Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), and attempted to deal with the principles of compensation, but the fact remains that it is ultimately a matter of judgment for the House. I hope that, on a free vote, hon. Members will consider the issue very carefully.
	Although I agreed with the Minister's general remarks that new clause 1 is drafted so widely that it allows for some potentially spurious claims for compensation, the fundamental principle is well founded, which is why I shall support new clause 1 in the Lobby. I agree with the criticisms about the drafting, but I supported a similar amendment in Committee because some peopleadmittedly, perhaps only a fewwill be deprived of their livelihoods as a result of the Bill. The amount of compensation might be low because the period of unemployment might be short, but the same fundamental principle applies to the banning of handguns and of fur farming, which have a direct parallel with the Bill.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that when one reads the Minister's comments in the Official Report, one will find that he was arguing in favour of the principle of compensation, at least for those people who will lose their employment and assets as a direct result of the ban? The Minister suggested that he argued the opposite, but that will be contradicted by the record of the debate.

Andrew George: The Minister will wish to put clearly on the record what he believes he said, but I read between the lines of the argument that he presented, too, and it contained a strong argument that the main weakness of the new clause lay in its drafting.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman invites me to correct any misapprehensions. I thought that I had set out clearly the principles on which compensation has been decided by Governments of all colours over the years, and said that the conditions do not apply in this case, especially given the wide-ranging nature of the new clause. Nor do they apply in terms of the direct application of the legislation to specific aspects of employment.

Andrew George: That is helpful, because the Minister has once again indicated that his primary argument against the new clause is its wide-ranging nature. When we debated the issue of compensation in Committee, the Minister made a cogent argument to the effect that, given that the Bill at that time proposed registration, compensation would not be applicable because the loss would be caused not by Act of Parliament but by the applicant's failure to succeed in registering their hunt. That was a stronger argument against compensation.

John Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister put himself in a difficult position when he said that compensation was payable only when people had their property confiscated? Does he know of a single fur farmer who had his property confiscated? People did not lose their property, but they did lose their livelihood, which is a precise parallel with the narrow drafting of the new clause.

Andrew George: The fundamental point is that people lost their livelihoods, not their properties. That was the argument advanced by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on moving the new clause, and it is that principle that I support.

Edward Garnier: The Minister mentioned the firearms legislation. People did not lose their livelihoods because they were not able to use what is called a handgun; they lost their ability to take part in sporting competitions with pistols. Those who had shops were no longer able to sell handguns, but they could sell shotguns, rifles and other firearms that remained within the law. Is not the parallel getting a bit bendy?

Andrew George: As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) suggested earlier, one of the principles involved is the loss of property. In the case of handguns, the property lost was the handgun. In the case of fur farming, livelihoods were lost.

Peter Atkinson: Another relevant example concerns an individual in County Durham who runs a fox destruction business. Much to the disapproval of the Master of Foxhounds Association, he ownsprivatelyabout 10 foxhounds, which he uses for that purpose. When the Bill becomes law, he will lose his business entirely, and will effectively be deprived of his property. I see no difference between his case and that of a fur farmer.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman helps to make the point. I am sure that the new clause, as drafted, would catch the constituent to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

David Heath: We must continue to explore the parallel between the fur farming legislation and this Bill. Whatever one thinks of hunting, some people will lose their jobs as a direct result of the legislation. It was considered absolutely necessary to provide compensation to fur farmers. I remember the proceedings well. It was never suggested then that fur farmers were entitled to benefit and the assistance of the Employment Service, or that they could diversify into some other form of business involving keeping animals in cages without endangering their continued well-being. Why is that argument being employed in this instance?

Andrew George: The Minister might argue that that was because fur farmers ran their own businesses rather than being employees.

David Heath: It was because they were rich.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend, from a sedentary position, makes the point that I was going to makethat it was because the fur farmers were better off than those who we believe will be caught within the curtilage of the new clause, in respect of compensation.
	I asked the Minister what estimate his Department had made of the potential cost to the Government of running the registration scheme. As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) noted, a similar question applies to many aspects of the original Billthe one that the Minister favoured. Other expenses under that version of the Bill would have included the high cost of the tribunal system that the Minister intended to establish. The Minister says that costs would amount to several million pounds. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire said that he had not made an estimate of the likely costs involved in any compensation scheme, but I do not think that the costs under the tightly drafted scheme that I would consider appropriate in connection with a total ban would be much different from what the Minister envisaged in his original Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing for an ex gratia payment to cover practical consequences, or for a general principle in respect of payments? If the latter is the case, does he think that the House should compensate wheel clampers if it passed legislation against that activity? If we legislated on the licensing of doorkeepers, does he think that we should compensate bouncers? Is he speaking according to a general principle which he thinks the House should adopt forthwith, or is he saying thatin this instance, and because of these particular circumstancescompensation should be paid on an ex gratia basis?

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is projecting into the future. We do not know what the strength of such cases may be; I have certainly not been involved in any parliamentary debates on those matters.
	We are considering the principle set out in previous legislation, such as the Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000, which has been prayed in aid, and the compensation provisions for people who have given up their handguns. That is the benchmark against which I am measuring the Bill. It would impose a complete ban on hunting, and the principle applies to the people who would be affected by that.

Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman should not be too confused by the question put by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). Nothing in new clause 1 expressly precludes the usual duty to mitigate one's loss. Anyone who goes before the tribunal, or whatever it is, that will assess the loss for which compensation is to be paid will have to demonstrate that he has done all that he can to mitigate his loss. In any form of assessment of damages or loss, a court or tribunal wants to know what a person has done to mitigate their loss. That ought to apply to the new clause, as it would in any other civil claim for compensation.

Andrew George: I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman has experience of such cases in the courts. Subsections (5) and (6) would provide for legal examination and appeals.
	I do not want to take up more time than necessary, as I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak in the small amount of time that remains for the debate. Fundamentally, I agree with the first half of the Minister's comments. The new clause is rather wider than I would allow. However, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire made a strong argument to draw the attention of the Minister and of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the Department's significant and continued failure to deal with the problem of fallen stock.
	The Minister said that a benchmark of 50 per cent. of all livestock farmers had been set and that, once that threshold had been reached, a national collection scheme would be introduced. However, I know of many livestock farmers who have received more than one form, so, given the administrative problems in the Department, I do not know whether more than 50 per cent. have already registered their interest. I have already raised the matter with the Minister.

Alun Michael: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we would not play with the figures in that regard. Some care is being taken and, with the trade associations and farming unions, we are looking into the administrative difficulties to ensure that a true picture emerges. A proper balance of businesses is necessary to make the figures work and to ensure that the public investment to support the scheme is justified. We are still looking into that with some care.

Andrew George: I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. When he checks his figures in detail, however, I think that he will find that far more forms were sent out than there were livestock holdings against which to judge support for the scheme.

Hugo Swire: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as I said in the Committee last week, when the Bill involved a degree of registration, the Minister could advance the argument that there was no need for compensation? However, since the Bill has become little other than the private Member's Bill of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and is an all-out ban, might it not have been easier for the Opposition to come up with a tighter clause had the Government spent a little time working out the financial implications of a total ban and the economic loss that would result? Would not that have been the act of a responsible Minister, rather than rushing through a completely different Bill, with only one day in Standing Committee, as a result of which none of us can say to what extent the measure will affect those living and working in the countryside and involved in or associated with hunting?

Andrew George: I agree, and as I said earlier in my contribution, registration would allow the Minister to construct an argument, as he did in Committee, that compensation might not be appropriate in such cases. But the Bill is, in fact, quite different in that regard.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the preposterously short time that we have left to debate eight amendments and a new clause28 minuteswe are we unlikely to hear any plausible explanation from the Minister about why he thinks that compensation is not reasonable? The Minister has said that, despite the contradictions, he is not considering introducing compensation. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is, in itself, a fundamental violation of the rights that have been introduced, not least for mink farmers, by the Government in previous legislation? They are contradicting a precedent that they themselves have set.

Andrew George: My hon. Friend makes a very strong point, but we are now reiterating arguments. Anyone who has listened to and perhaps later reads the Minister's speech will make a judgment and reflect on the fact that his case against the principle of compensation has not been well argued, unlike the drafting issue. On that basis and in view of the fact that many other hon. Members wish to contribute, I shall to make it clear that I will support the new clause when the House divides.

Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be called to speak in the debate. I have not had the opportunity to speak on this controversial subject on the many occasions that it has been debated in the House previously. May I say at the outset that I shall join those hon. Members who support the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening?
	This seems to be an elementary question of equity and fairness. I am not over-impressed by the Banbury formula that appears to have been put before the House this evening. I am surprised that my hon. Friends should support paying compensation for property, but denying compensation for livelihood. Huntsmen are very skilled. It is a skilled, delicate and intricate trade and calling. It is difficult to understand immediately how they can turn those qualities straight away to some other occupation. The problem this evening is that the drafters of the new clause have drawn it far too wide. As a consequence, they may well have lost the sympathy of a number of Labour Members who, although they support a total ban, think it right and proper that those who lose their livelihoods as a direct consequence should be compensated.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that members of the recommittal Committee had the opportunity to vote on a specific amendment that was very close to what the Minister implied, perhaps by accident, he would consider sympathetically. So we have tried it both ways, but in neither example are we able to convince those who, on the basis of prejudice, have simply set their minds against compensation to change their view.

Alan Hurst: It is not for me to judge the minds of other hon. Members, but I should have thought that the House would be more receptive to a tightly drawn new clause than to this broad-brush approach.

Dominic Grieve: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Does he share my slight surprise that the Minister, who is normally there to square the circle in such circumstances, has not said that he appreciates the principle and will therefore go away and consider it properly? That happens routinely on Report, when amendments are proposed that may not quite meet the necessity of the case but, nevertheless, have a point behind them. Is it not absolutely astonishing that we are met with a blanket refusal to consider a principle that, I am pleased to hear, the hon. Gentleman understands and shares?

Alan Hurst: Again, it is not for me to judge the mind of my right hon. Friend. He clearly hears what I say, and what other hon. Members say. We must return to the principle that livelihoods are as important as property. We need to have respect for those who will lose that livelihood in these controversial circumstances. One is put in mind of Abraham Lincoln at the conclusion of the American civil war: a gracious and generous approach is a far better way to conduct oneself than what might be perceived as being vindictive.

Alun Michael: One must make a distinction between the element of loss of equipment, which was what happened under the guns legislation, loss of business, which underlay the decision in relation to fur farming, and loss of employment, to which my hon. Friend referred. That is why I referred to the principles at the beginning of the process, and I have considered the case well. Were there an argument about such a limited element that would be affected under those principles, of course I would be willing to consider it. I have heard no propositions during the debate, however, that lead me to identify any element as one that would fit with the principles that are applied and on which we ought therefore to move. My hon. Friend can be assured that that is not from a wish not to listen to his comments or the comments of other Members.

Alan Hurst: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will continue to listen. The example that comes readily to my mind, however, which is not an exact comparison, is that were the electorate to withdraw their confidence from any right hon. or hon. Members, and were we to lose our livelihood as a consequence and be unable to find an easy alternative trade to follow, we would be compensated with a sum in excess of 25,000 for those on the humbler Benches, and, I suspect, rather more for those on more elevated Benches. I would pray in aid that if hon. Members can be reduced in that way so can huntsmen.

Gerald Kaufman: Does my hon. Friend agree that if a proposition of this kind were to be brought forward to the House, the last people who have the right to bring it forward are Conservative Members who, during a period of eight years, deliberately destroyed 215,000 jobs in the coal mining industry, together with hundreds of thousands more jobs in coal communities. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has put his name to the new clause, was one of the people responsible for those hundreds of thousands of job losses.

Alan Hurst: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but that is precisely why I prayed in aid the conduct of President Abraham Lincoln. I could operate at a less historical level and say that two wrongs do not make a rightthat phrase may not have such a flow to it, but it may sum up the position.
	I do not intend to detain the House longer. It seems to me that this is a simple question of fairness

Eric Martlew: What my hon. Friend needs to do is to compare the situation with that in Cumbria two years agohe knows Cumbria well, as he trained there as a solicitorwhen we had foot and mouth, as farmers were compensated for the loss of beasts but the farm labourers who lost their jobs were not compensated at all.

Alan Hurst: That is the best argument that I have heard so far, and as they say on American law programmes, I shall take it under advisement as to what the proper answer would be. It does not detract from what I was saying, however, and if that was the case, I would have anticipated my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to have argued on behalf of those farm labourers who lost their jobs at that time. Perhaps it was a pity that that was not done. Nevertheless, it does not change my view that in this case, when the House has rightly reached a decision about what should happen about hunting with hounds, we should therefore move on to consider how to deal properly with those who will suffer as a consequence.

John Gummer: I respect the comments of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is not quite my neighbour but very close, and who understands the circumstances about which we are talking. I found it difficult to accept the comments of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), as he will remember that many more miners lost their jobs under Governments whom he supported, and that the arrangements made were much less generous than those under Governments whom I supported. However, that is not the matter that we are discussing today, although the right hon. Gentleman will lose no moment in which to find some unpleasant personal comment to make. That is his stock in trade.
	We are not talking about grand people like the right hon. Gentleman; we are talking about very simple people who have spent their lives doing a legal job. We are also talking about ordinary people who are members of a hunt who have property and hounds for the purpose of that hunt. Their case is exactly parallel to the issue that has been prayed in aidthose who were in the business of fur farming. When fur farming was legal, they had property and employment. When the House decided that fur farming should not be legal, they lost their employment but they did not lose their property. However, their property could not be used for the purpose for which they had invested their money and their time. The House therefore decided that it was reasonable to give them compensation.
	I remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that decision was arrived at very late. The Government discovered that they ran the risk of not complying with the human rights legislation. It is difficult to see that depriving someone of the use of their property and of their livelihood in the direct sense could comply with that legislation, unless we seek to provide reasonable compensation with all the caveats that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned.

Edward Garnier: Is it not peculiar that the original Bill that was introduced to the House last autumn contained the relevant certificate under the Human Rights Act and that, all of a sudden and by surprise, it is no longer there?

John Gummer: My hon. and learned Friend is right, but the Minister has explained that it will be there in future. I suggest that he may have to look rather carefully at this part of the Bill, which has been highlighted by the new clause, because it is particularly, if not solely, vulnerable to the human rights legislation.
	The Minister is also vulnerable on two other grounds. The first relates to what people in general would feel to be fair. I think that it is probably true to say that most people who follow these debates would think that the Minister came to the House with one Bill and that the Bill that we are now discussing iseven if I use the most considerate term to describe itfundamentally different. I think that it is a different Bill altogether, but it must be fundamentally different because the Minister, in correspondence and in debates in the House and Committee, made a distinction between what he was proposing and what his hon. Friends, including his very hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), would have liked. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree, but we each at least recognise that the other holds a proper and consistent view on this issue.
	The Minister came to the House with one Bill and the House decided that it was not to its liking. It changed it so radically that, in normal parlance, it is now seen as a different Bill. In those circumstances, the Minister would find it hard to explain to anybody how it would be reasonable and fair not to give people some compensation. He must consider that normal, down-to-earth position.

Alan Whitehead: rose

John Gummer: I shall give way in a moment.
	I sat through the Minister's long discussion of morality in Committee, although he became significantly less willing to raise that matter as our proceedings continued. He said that he had been advised that the Government had no moral responsibility to pay compensation. I had to ask the Minister how he was able to speak about morality, given that no figure who is normally thought of as an arbiter of morality shared his view on hunting. No Church, Jewish community or member of the Judeo-Christian Church suggests that they take such a moral position. I said that if he wanted to know about morality, perhaps he should talk to those who might be able to help him.
	The Minister said that he was advised that he has no moral responsibility. Who in the Government advises on moral responsibility? That is an interesting point, given that many of us believe that it is immoral to take away a person's livelihood directly in such controversial circumstances. I had not heard the hon. Member for Braintree speak before, but I thought that he adopted an elegant and proper approach. Although he does not share my view on the main aspect of the Bill, we share a common view on how people should be treated.
	The Government must tell us who explained the moral issue, because there are questions about whether they always get their morality right on other matters, although it would be improper to discuss that under new clause 1. Those of us who debated the Iraq war took that position and therefore disagreed with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. I am worried that a Minister should come to the House and tell us that he has taken advice on morality without giving us an indication of the quality of the advice and the nature of the adviser. I think that most people would

Alun Michael: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: May I finish my sentence, because the Minister was very keen on finishing his sentences? I think that most people would hope that the Minister would say to himself, Morality is based on doing to others as you would have them do unto you. I suspect that if Parliament deprived him of his job and livelihood, he would hope that it would make life easier for himat least, at first. Indeed, that would happen.

Alun Michael: I am rather intrigued by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman links a moral argument with advice. I said that I was advised that there was no legal obligation to provide compensationthat was absolutely clearand that I had not been persuaded that there was a case for it in any other terms. Loss of employment is dealt with in a variety of ways, as has been shown by other examples. I am afraid that he has either misheard or misunderstood something that I have said.

John Gummer: If the Minister reads the unexpurgated Hansard report of that debate, he will find that he said that he was advised that the Government have neither legal nor moral need to compensatethe two were put together. He might wish to withdraw that statement, but I shall not let him get away from the fact that he said that he was advisedbecause he was very hard on my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) and would not let him get away from something that he said, although we all knew what my hon. Friend manifestly meant.
	The real reason why I raise the point is that the Minister has not convinced moderate, ordinary Members of the House such as the hon. Member for Braintree. I do not believe that he will have convinced anyone outside the House that there is a moral case for not providing compensation. The Minister cannot merely come to the Dispatch Box and say that he knows and therefore it must be right. He is not always right, as he has discovered. Irrespective of logic and rationale, he has been found wrong on almost every issue on which we have voted.

Andrew George: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister's arguments on compensation have thawed as the debate has progressed? Having pursued in Committee the sub-plot of less than cordial remarks about the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman, I fear, will not succeed tonight. Does he accept that in response to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), the Minister accepted the principle of compensation? It was purely the issue of applicability that concerned him.

John Gummer: I should like to be led down the route of thinking that the Minister has opened a door to compensation, and I certainly would not want to close it, but he said that he was not considering compensation. He needs to think seriously about the way in which his words will be heard by people outside the House. He should distinguish between his complaints about the detail of the new clause. I have done the sort of job that he is doing and it is always possible to make a fuss about a new clause. There are always reasons why they could be better written. We want the Minister to say that he has listened to our arguments and to accept that it will not go down well in Cardiff and Penarth if he has to explain to constituents that he thinks it reasonable not to compensate people when he has removed their livelihood. How can he say that compensation is all right for mink farmers but not for huntsmen? How can he sell that to his constituents? I am trying to help him so that he can go back to his constituency unscathed.

Lembit �pik: Let me help the Minister further, although perhaps he has changed his mind. He said:
	There are decisions that people have to take when new legislation is introduced. Some decisions are consequent on the legislation specifically. A lot of other decisions that people take are not consequent on it. If people make such decisions, it is not appropriate for compensation to be paid.[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 3 July 2003; c. 94.]
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that clearly implies that the Minister believed, at least on 3 July, that those decisions that are specifically consequent on the legislation might be grounds for compensation on, what sounds to me, a moral basis?

John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is right. I think that the Minister is most embarrassed about the issue. I have been pretty tough in our discussions, and the right hon. Gentleman has responded in kind. That is because we both feel strongly about the subject. Debate would not be good if it were not of that sort. I think, however, that he is, at heart, someone who understands why we find it difficult to accept his argument, which tries to distinguish between a mink farmer and a huntsman. The only distinction is the social security position of the individual. One is an employed person and the other was a self-employed person. It seems to me that for a Minister of his ilk to make that distinction in that way is odd.

Alun Michael: I appreciate that the Minister's approach is slightly quixotic. In general, this may not be the only issue on which he takes a particular view on compensation. As I said, a settled view has been taken by Governments of both parties over the years. As I said in Committee when we discussed the matter on 27 February, I considered the legal arguments and was clearly advised that there was no legal obligation on the payment of compensation. I also considered the non-legal arguments and could see no case that was consistent with the decisions made, for example, on the confiscation of guns. The onus is on the right hon. Gentleman and those who believe in compensation to make the case in accordance with the requirements and the way in which the issue has been viewed consistently by Governments of all colours.

John Gummer: I am happy to tackle that, because it was to be my next point. I want to consider the application of the statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) to mink farmers. Reading what he said, I find it quite difficult to apply it to mink farmers.

Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, I want to develop this issue because it is important. The Minister did a peculiar thing. He said that because a Minister in a previous Government had said something, it must be true now. There are three reasons why that is not so. The first is that this is not the same Government. I have sat in the House throughout many of the debates since this Government won office, and I do not think that I ever heard anybody say, We can't change this because previous Governments had a different view. The whole point of changing Governments is that one might have a different view, so that is not a sensible argument.
	The second issue, which I find very peculiar, is that the earlier statement was made before we had human rights legislation. We all had arguments about whether that legislation should be brought into the system, but it makes a difference, so one cannot quote from an earlier time and pretend that nothing has changed. The third reason, which is very simple, is that I cannot see how one can square the mink farmers' compensation with what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: There is one fundamental difference between the situation when my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) made that statement and the situation now. One of the first things that this Government did was to accede to the European convention on human rights. As it was such a priority, they should bend over backwards to comply with it.

John Gummer: I am one of those people who are in favour of the convention. One of the United Kingdom's problems is that, under Governments of both parties, we have had the view that human rights are for other people and that we do not need such legislation.

Eric Martlew: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Gummer: No, I want to respond to my hon. Friend's view. The world is different, and the Government decided that it would be different. The Minister will therefore have some difficulty in explaining logically to his constituents, and certainly to mine, why it is acceptable to compensate mink farmers but not others. His only argument is that there are fewer of the first and more of the second.

Edward Garnier: One might have thought that if the Minister will not see the moral argument or the legal argument, he would see the political argument that to withdraw the heat from this issue, he might at least nod towards the principle of compensation. That would bring with him many of his friends, and it might take the heat out of the argument on this side of the House.

John Gummer: I entirely agree. That is why I told the Minister that I wanted to help him. As he goes round the countryside doing his job, he will find that large numbers of country people find him intolerable and are not prepared to listen to whatever else he says. He is already having a pretty difficult time, but he will have an impossible time if he leaves huntsmen uncompensated. No amount of clever talk will overcome the fact that this is an anti-countryside measure and that he is an anti-countryside Minister who has been rumbled.

Gerald Kaufman: Mr. Deputy Speaker

It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Orders [16 December 2002 and 1 July 2003].
	The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Order for Third Reading read.[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.[Mr. Heppell.]

Alun Michael: An interesting process that has lasted many months brings me to the Chamber tonight. It began with the Government's commitment to enable Parliament to reach a conclusion on hunting with dogs. That commitment has never taken the matter out of proportion. It has not been the most important issue on many hon. Friends' agendas, but they have increasingly wanted it to be tackled and brought to a conclusion.
	The issue has been difficult and divisive. When I first expressed a wish to see any evidence that people wanted to present, I received two large piles of letters. One pile said, Do nothing at all. Leave everything alone. The other said, Ban everything. A smaller number of thoughtful, considered contributions provided the sort of evidence that all those who wish to engage with this or any other issue should take into account.
	I pay tribute to individuals on both sides of the argument who were willing, despite their reservations and fears, to enter into discussion and debate. I refer especially to the work of Lord Burns, who took evidence over an extended period of time and listened to many people

Peter Luff: He was ignored.

Alun Michael: He produced a report that was not ignored, as the hon. Gentleman claims. Those who represented both sides of the debate asked me to take the report as a starting point for consideration when the responsibility was given to me.
	In the hearings in Portcullis House, the Countryside Alliance, animal welfare organisations and the middle way group were willing to sit down and listen not only to each other but to people who gave evidence. They listened to and questioned a series of people whose evidence was presented on the initiative of each group. That was perhaps more informative than many other debates, either before or afterwards.

Peter Luff: They were ignored.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want a running commentary from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) throughout the Minister's speech.

Alun Michael: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in a moment. He does himself less credit than he could claim because he was willing to put in the time and to listen. It is sad that that willingness has lessened as our parliamentary proceedings have progressed.

Peter Luff: Does the Minister acknowledge that Labour Members have comprehensively ignored Lord Burns's inquiry and the Portcullis hearings? On 30 June, the Secretary of State told The Times:
	The Bill as it stands
	that is, before it was wrecked by the Minister's colleagues' amendments
	is acknowledged by animal welfare organisations to be the strongest ever put forward. No Bill on a simple ban has ever been thought to be workable. If cruelty is the main concern, I plead with colleagues neither to wreck the Bill, nor delay its timing.
	It has been wrecked.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it a fact that, on Third Reading, we can discuss only what the Bill contains, not what it does not include?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I fear that the ruling is sometimes frayed at the edges by hon. Members, although the Chair does its best to keep them in order. However, I was more concerned about the length of the intervention.

Alun Michael: Neither the Burns report nor the evidence sessions in Portcullis House have been ignored. At the end of the day, people made their judgments on what was available. Many people quote selectively from the Burns report. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire has practised that, as have many on all sides of the argument. That is partly because it was an excellent report that looked into all aspects and was rightly taken as a basis for further consideration. Nor have the hearings at Portcullis House been ignored. They were not conclusive but they helped to engender proper debate on many of these issues.
	Neither would I pretend that I was pleased when new clause 11 was added to the Bill last week. As I said, I believed in the strength of the Bill that I proposed to the House, but it was the House that took the decision last week. Since that debate, the Bill has been recommitted and has been back into Committee to make it, as it stands before us today, consistent with the decisions made by the House in last Monday's clear vote.

Lembit �pik: The Minister is trying to reassure those of us who have spent five years trying to argue the case on logical grounds that we have not wasted our time, yet the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), the ringleader of the kangaroo court that destroyed the Bill, said:
	The tests that my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to as objective do not apply to a situation in which passions and subjectivity rule the day.[Official Report, 30 June 2003; Vol. 408, c. 91.]
	How on earth can the Minister now convince us that we were not wasting our time?

Alun Michael: I do not believe that it is ever a waste of time to look at evidence to try to reach logical conclusions, but I confess that there are occasions when it proves impossible to carry the day when passions are raised so high. Many of those who voted differently last week nevertheless acknowledged, as in the quotation that the hon. Gentleman used, that a genuine effort had been made to introduce a sound and workable piece of legislation.
	I want to address the Bill that is before the House today. The Bill as proposed and as amended in Committee came back to this House for a decision last week, and it went back into Committee last Thursday to be made consistent with the decisions of the House. The view of the House of Commons is clear, and I hope that the present Bill will be responded to thoughtfully and constructively when it has been given its Third Reading and goes to another place.
	The Bill was amended in Committee last week to make sure that it makes good law. It makes it clear what people can and cannot do within the law and it is consistent with the decisions of the House of Commons last Monday. Enforcement will be by the normal methods of the criminal justice system, rather than through the system of registration that I had offered in the original Bill.
	I hear misleading voices from the Opposition Benches on some issues relating to enforcement. The police are not saying that the Bill as amended on Monday will be unenforceable. Some headlines may have given that indication, but let me correct that misapprehension. The police agree with our point that the registration system might well have been easier to enforce, as hunters would have been required to carry proof of registration; the tests, the evidential gathering, would have been straightforward. But the Bill as amended is enforceable. Last Thursday's Committee work ensured that. The Bill will give the police the powers that they have lacked in the pastfor instance, to tackle illegal hare coursing. That important part of the original Bill remains unchanged. All hare coursing events will now be illegal and anyone participating in them will be committing an offence, so enforcement by the police becomes far more straightforward in that respect.

Dominic Grieve: As of last week, the Government had enacted 661 acts of criminalisation of various forms of conduct since they were elected in 1997, and the evidence is overwhelming that most of them have proved incapable of being enforced, but lie on the statute book unused. There are many priorities for the police in fighting serious crime. What makes the Minister think that this Bill will be enforceable, given that so much of the other legislation that has criminalised otherwise law-abiding people has proved completely useless?

Alun Michael: It would be outrageous for the hon. Gentleman to argue that people can somehow ignore the law. Under this Government, crime has gone down and enforcement has gone up. [Hon. Members: Hooray!] I should also point out, because it seems to be news to Opposition Members, that hare coursing has been illegal for many years. It has been impossible for the police to tackle it adequately because of the need to gather evidence and to show evidence of trespass. [Interruption.] It is obvious that certain Opposition Members do not understand some of the law breaking that goes on in the countryside.

Several hon. Members: rose

Alun Michael: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Challen).

Colin Challen: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It seems that the Opposition want to have their cake and eat it. They claimed this evening that 100,000 hounds will have to be put down, and now they say that the Bill will be unenforceable. The two arguments do not add up.

Alun Michael: Opposition Members are very selective when it comes to law and order issues. Until now, hunting people have told us that they take pride in being law-abiding citizens. The police have many more difficult laws to enforce than detecting and cautioning a group of peopleif they do break the lawriding behind a pack of dogs on the trail of a wild mammal.
	There are of course issues of policing priorities and resources, which are matters for chief constables, acting in accordance with the Home Secretary's guidance.

Henry Bellingham: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: In a moment. Enforcement is not simply a matter for the police. It is common for animal welfare organisations to enforce animal welfare legislation through private prosecutions, and hunting with dogs will be no exception.

Henry Bellingham: rose

Alun Michael: I shall give way to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) as I fear that he will otherwise burst a blood vessel.

Henry Bellingham: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way in such charming fashion. I want to bring him back to hare coursing. Schedule 1, on exempt hunting, states:
	The hunting of a hare which has been shot is exempt.
	May I therefore take it that coursing can continue if an armed person is present who shoots the hare first?

Alun Michael: No, that is not the case, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman study the Bill with a little more care. The Bill as amended makes it clear what is and is not allowed: it is clear.
	As I have said, nothing in this Bill will force people to act illegally. It is for Parliament and, ultimately, the democratically elected House of Commons, to determine the law of the land. Neither House of Parliament will allow itself to be intimidated by threats of violence. The police will act properly against violence in connection with hunting, whichever side it comes from. That is the position as understood by the police, and as it should be understood in this House.

John Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that hunt saboteurs caused huge numbers of breaches of the peace, and that there were almost no prosecutions by the police? In what way will the situation be different when the positions are reversed?

Alun Michael: It is very straightforward: the police enforce the law against either side without fear or favour, as is absolutely right. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the article that Alastair McWhirter, the chief constable of Suffolk police, wrote for last week's edition of Police Review. He has lead responsibility within the Association of Chief Police Officers, and I have discussed these issues with him. I should underline the fact that Mr. McWhirter does not say that the Hunting Bill as amended will unenforceable, as one or two headlines have suggested. Quite reasonably, he does point out some of the difficulties and makes suggestions for overcoming them, such as the use of video recording evidence. Since he wrote his original article, recommittal has ensured that the Bill as it now stands will be workable, and he has confirmed[Interruption.] Opposition Members should listen to what I am saying, and I shall give them that sentence again in full. Since Mr. McWhirter wrote his original article, recommittal has ensured that the Bill as it now stands will be workable, and he has confirmed that that is his understanding.

Adrian Flook: The senior policeman said that enforcing the Act would be difficult, not unenforceable. Will the Minister please clarify the point that he is trying to make?

Alun Michael: A great deal in policing is difficult. The comparison was drawn in respect of the Bill as drafted and the Bill as amended in Committee. The senior policeman also made clear the objectivity with which the police would deal with the enforcement of any legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Would the Minister care to comment on the article that appeared in The Times on 3 July, in which Alastair McWhirter, whom the Minister has cited and prayed in aid, pleads for practical laws? The article states that police chiefs had hoped that MPs would back Tony Blair and allow hunting under licence. Now they fear that there will be widespread flouting of the new law and that they will have little power to prevent it. Will the Minister comment on that comment?

Alun Michael: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should read the full version in the Police Review rather than the shorter version in The Times or headlines that have been attached by a variety of press and media to a thoughtful article. That is why I went to some trouble, having seen in advance what Mr. McWhirter was saying about the Bill, to explain some of the ways in which he has been misquoted.

David Burnside: The article in The Times is the most misquoted for many years. Will the Minister comment on the Chief Constable's statement that if the anti-hunting forces succeed in their campaign, it will lead to increased violence against organised shooting in the countryside, which will contribute to a breakdown in law and order?

Alun Michael: The Chief Constable referred to the disruption of activities in relation to hunting in the past and the possibility that some people might seek to disrupt other countryside activities. We have no truck with that approach. [Interruption.] It is unhelpful for law and order and the countryside when Conservative Members mock the proper application of laws, which is what the issue is all about.

Peter Luff: The Minister has completely misrepresented the article in The Times, which provides a comprehensive demolition of the effect of the Bill. The chief constable said that 200 shoots had already been disrupted. It will get much worse in the countryside, and this legislation is a recipe for disaster for the police force of the United Kingdom and the respect that it enjoys in the rural communities of England and Wales.

Alun Michael: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should talk up that sort of lawbreaking. The law must be enforced against those who disrupt legal activities, wherever they take place. I have already said that the full article by Mr. McWhirter, published in the Police Review, is consistent with what I have said to the House this evening.

Hugo Swire: For the sake of clarification, the Minister should point out that Mr. McWhirter was speaking in his capacity as spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Why does the Minister believe that Mr. McWhirter went on to say:
	Parliament's vote for an outright ban on hunting with dogs fills many of my fellow officers with dread.?
	Could it be that many of his officers are thinly spread in rural areas and know the law-abiding people in their local communities, against whom they will be forced to act?

Alun Michael: It is about time that Conservative Members appreciated that if people choose to break the law, it is their decision. That applies in a whole variety of matters. If the law says that something should not be done, the individual who does it breaks the law. It is not the other way round.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister makes an important point. Speaking as a lawyer, I know that respect for the law is of great importance. We keep saying that this Parliament is sovereign, and if we wanted to we could vote to say that the moon is made of cheese, but that does not mean that people would believe us. The difficulty with this Bill is that it offends the conscience of so many people. I greatly fear that, as a result, many people will defy the law, which fills me with both regret and foreboding.

Alun Michael: I would like to hear Opposition Members encourage more respect for the law. The hon. Gentleman says that as a lawyer he respects the law, but then he suggests almost that it does not matter whether people obey the law or not. The House has come to a conclusion on the issue of hunting with dogs, after many years of thoughtnot overnightand Members should appreciate the efforts that the Government have made to find a way to ameliorate the impact of a ban on hunting. That House deliberated and took a decision last week. We now have a Bill that is consistent with the way in which the House voted a week ago, and it should be treated with due respect.

Kenneth Clarke: I have listened with interest to this passionate debate about whether it is practical to enforce a law of which the Minister did not approve until about 10 days ago. In the rural parts of my constituency, criminality is the issue raised most often with me. My constituents suffer from a level of criminality, vandalism and antisocial disorder that the police are unable to cope with at present. Is the Minister suggesting that priority should be given to enforcing a new law against foxhunting and that my rural constituents can look forward to an unprecedented number of policemen coming to their area to prevent foxhunting, which is not the major cause of criminality or disorder in my constituency?

Alun Michael: I suspect that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's sense of priorities is shared by Labour Members. I remind him, however, that during his time at the Home Office, little was done to deal with hare coursers. Illegal hare coursing has been a nuisance, and worse, in many parts of the country. It is a scourge of many rural communities, and the Bill will provide police with the tools to tackle that problem. I have yet to hear a word from Conservative Members on that point, although many of them have written to me to suggest that it would be a good idea to deal with the pestilential and illegal activity of hare coursing.

Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This so-called debate is supposed to finish at 10.40. Are we going to have a debate or just listen to this intellectually threadbare diatribe from the Minister?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. It is for the Minister to decide whether he takes interventions, and it is for hon. Members to decide whether they seek to make them.

Alun Michael: I shall take that as an encouragement not to take further interventions.
	I shall deal with one further point briefly before giving other hon. Members their chance to comment. There has been some attempt to suggest that the status of the Bill has changed in the past 10 days. I wish to make it clear that this remains the Government's Bill. More formally, it remains a public general Bill, sponsored by the Government. The amendments have not changed its status. It has been suggested that it had been turned into a private Member's Bill or even a hybrid Bill. All such suggestions are mischievous and I refute them.
	Once the Bill has been given a Third Reading by the Commons, it will go through the normal legislative stages in the House of Lords, where it may be amended. We hope that the other place will engage with the Bill when it passes there. If the Commons agrees with the Lords amendments, or the two Houses agree on alternative amendments, the Bill will become law in the normal way. The amendments made by the Commons have not altered the formalities or the decisions that might have to be taken at a later stage by the authorities of the House. The Bill should be treated as a Government Bill, which is what it is.
	I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is difficult to deal with issues that are so polarised between those who are passionately in favour of legislation and those who are against it. It has been my responsibility to try to bring the Bill before the House in good order and to seek to persuade Members of Parliament to support it.
	Then, having heard the decision of this House last week, it was my responsibility to make sure that the Bill was put into good order, consistent with the House's decisions.
	The extremism with which Opposition Members approached this debate and their unwillingness to listen to any voice other than their own do no great credit to them or to the Conservative party. I hope that the Bill will be given a Third Reading so that it can be moved forward and that it will receive a more responsible and reasonable response in another place.

James Gray: In the Minister's introductory remarks a moment or two ago, he said that the process that had brought us to this point in our proceedings had been interesting. However, I should describe it as the most dreary, despicable, unfair, illiberal and undemocratic parliamentary process for a very long time.
	The Government have been humiliated by their own Back Benchers. The Minister's personal standing lies in tatters. In his own words, ignorance and prejudice have been allowed, in his reformed Bill, to override common sense and scientific evidence. A potentially acceptable process for regulating hunting has been ignored. Our proceedings have been allowed to degenerate into a lynch mob, and the result is an outright ban. Parliament's primary duty must be to safeguard the rights and interests of minorities, but it has been turned into a vehicle for the class warrior vegetarians on the Government Benches to enforce their worst prejudices on a decent, law-abiding minority.
	If it is passed, the Bill will criminalise hundreds of thousands of decent, law-abiding citizens who, up to now, would have gone out of their way to avoid as much as a parking ticket. The disgracefully guillotined and muddled parliamentary process was typified by the fact that, earlier, we were not even able to consider the second and third groups of amendments selected for debate.
	When the Minister wrote to us to announce the Portcullis House hearings, he said that he was determined to fulfil the Labour party manifesto commitment to settle the matter of hunting once and for all. I remember him saying that he would do it in a fair, balanced and scientific way that would stand the test of time. We who support the liberties and livelihoods of the countryside broadly welcomed that approach.
	Everyone at the Portcullis House hearings accepted that no one had proved that hunting was necessarily cruel. Burns did not do that, and Professor Sir Patrick Bateson certainly did not do that. He was the man who so memorably labelled the Minister as scientifically illiterate for claiming that he had irrefutable evidence about the outright cruelty of deer hunting. None of the scientistsincluding the 500 distinguished members of the Vets for Hunting organisationsaid that it was cruel. All agreed that the evidence was, as yet, inconclusive, and that further work in a variety of areas was necessary.
	We welcomed, broadly speaking, the Minister's balanced and scientific approach. We were ready to work with him to determine whether there were practices that needed to be approved. We were ready to consider the implications of some kind of modest and balanced licensing regime, if that were to be considered necessary.
	We were bitterly disappointed by the Bill, when it was eventually published. The Minister had ignored Burns, and the Portcullis House conclusions. He produced a Bill that he estimated, in his cynical way, would ban most hunting and would therefore be enough to buy off his Back-Bench colleagues. How wrong can one be?
	By that very act, the Minister ruined the entire logic and architecture of his whole approach. Illogically and bizarrely, he banned deer hunting and hare hunting outright. Even then, we took the view that the Bill was capable of amendment into a reasonable and liberal licensing regime. We tried to achieve exactly that in Committee, but the Minister was hijacked by his own Back Benchers into further illiberalising the cruelty and utility tests, and into further outright bans on hare hunting and on terrier work.
	It is interesting to look at the Minister's record on the subject of terrier work. When he introduced the Bill, he advocated that it should be subject to registration. In Standing Committee, he voted for it to be banned. Last week, when the Bill was recommitted to Standing Committee, he introduced an exemption for some aspects of terrier work.
	Where is the principle and evidence to support that twisting and turning? Why will that stand the test of time, as the Minister put it? It will not: there is no principle of any kind in that, nor in the rest of his disgraceful little Bill. The Minister has been hijacked by his own Back Benchers and the bizarre parliamentary proceedings last week wreckedhis wordthe entire logic and architecture of the Bill.

Lembit �pik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the scientific evidence is clear and that the consequence of the Bill will be increased suffering for animals in the countryside, because shooting creates more wounding? So the RSPCA, the League against Cruel Sports, the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) can take satisfaction in knowing that they have created exactly the opposite of what they purported to be fighting for in the first place.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. Nobody, but nobody, has suggested that fewer foxes will be killed as a result of the Bill. Almost certainly, far more foxes will be killed. The debate has been about the means by which they will be killed. The answer is that they will be snared, shot and even poisoned in some circumstancesthe Minister will do that in towns for protection against rabies. Foxes will die far more cruellythey will die in ditches from gangrenethan they have in recent times from being hunted.

Gregory Barker: They do not care.

James Gray: As my hon. Friend says, Labour Members do not care; all they care about is their class warfare prejudice. They could not care less about the animal welfare aspects of the measure.

Hugo Swire: Does my hon. Friend agree that if any element of this tawdry Bill were concerned with animal welfare, there is no way that deer hunting would be banned until something had been put in place to deal with the culling of deer on Exmoor, as witness the latest reports from Baronsdown?

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely strong point on deer hunting. There is no inexorable logic, as the Minister described it, that would justify the outright ban on stag hunting. It would have been perfectly logical to include all kinds of mammaldeer and hareas well as foxes and mink, and to allow the registrar and the tribunal to consider the matter. We would have accepted that general approach, but the moment that the Minister banned deer hunting and hare coursing outright and allowed, with no further consideration, rabbiting and ratting, he wrecked any scientific logic that lay behind the Bill in a desperate attempt, which then failed, to buy off his own rabid Back Benchers.

Henry Bellingham: May I remind my hon. Friend of submissions sent to me by the Swaffham hare coursing club? In that part of Norfolk, there is a healthy hare population; they are protected by keepers and preserved by farmers and smallholders. If hare coursing was banned, farmers would shoot the hares, as they are worth about 5 each and are quite valuable, and we would have a proliferation of illegal hare coursing, which keepers and farmers currently prevent and police. In a sparsely populated rural area, it would be impossible to police illegal hare coursing.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point about one of the most bizarre illogicalities in the Bill; namely, that organised hare coursing events, such as the Waterloo cup, are to be banned, while illegal hare coursing will be encouraged due to the exemptions in the Bill. If someone is using their own dogs on their own land, there is no restriction at all, but one is incentivised to carry a gun because one can use dogs to course a hare that is injured and escaping. In fact, the Bill does not reduce illegal hare coursing, as the Minister claims; I suspect that it would lead to a significant increase in that practice. It bans only organised hare coursing events, whose aim is to kill as few hares as possible, in favour of a regime whose aim is to kill as many hares as possible. The Minister simply does not understand hare coursing.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) has been passing a document around the Chamber, which Ministers, their Parliamentary Private Secretaries and others are reading. It is clearly germane to the debate. The hon. Gentleman is taking great pleasure in it and has just refused to give me a copy. Can you advise me on the procedure, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Should not the hon. Gentleman make the document available to both sides of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of the provenance of the document and I certainly have no reason to believe that it is a House of Commons paper that should be available to all hon. Members. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he should not be taking independent action across the Floor. All order is through the Chair.

James Gray: I am keen for as many colleagues as possible to be fitted into the very brief time available for the debate, so I shall finish by quoting Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, who, in The Sunday Telegraph last Sunday, memorably asked:
	When will we begin to debate the ethics of the future of our species with anything like the passion, and the thoroughness, that we debate the future of our foxes?
	He is right.
	The Bill is now intellectually and morally bankrupt; it is a parody of the Minister's original intentions. It would criminalise hundreds of thousands of decent law-abiding citizens and wreak havoc with the life and freedoms of our countryside. The Bill is a disgrace in every possible way and I hope that all lovers of freedom and of the English countryside will vote against its Third Reading.

Gerald Kaufman: As I was saying before you so politely interrupted me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of the debate on Report, this is a very important day for Parliament. It is an extremely important day because, after decades of struggle and campaigning, the House of Commons is now about to pass a Bill that will end a deliberate form of cruelty, conducted for pleasure, that ought never to have been allowed to be legal for very many years. So this is an historic day.

Lembit �pik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: As the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I might as well inform him, as well as the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), that the views that he has been advancing in the House are echoed in the leaflet by the British National party.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the Standing Orders demand that a Member who has referred to a document should make that document available to the rest of the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall try to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order. I can see no case for this particular matter. Members are responsible for the material on which they rely, and it is not necessary to make it available to all Members.
	May I just tell the House that this is a subject of enormous contentionit has been for some timeand my constituents feel strongly on both sides of the argument, but we will do ourselves a better service if we are seen to discuss it in a sober way, even though passions are very strong? I must ask the House to keep order even at this late stage.

Gerald Kaufman: rose

Lembit �pik: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: No, time is limited, and it may well be that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his last speech on the Bill.

Lembit �pik: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Loathe as I am to engage in this process, may I ask that you ensure that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not suggesting that there is any connection between myself and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the BNP? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I tell the House and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is a long-standing Member, that we do not want extreme passions to be raised at this stage of the debate? It is a subject of great importance in the eyes of many people and there are very strongly held views on both sides of the House, and I hope that, in the last minutes of the debate in the House, moderate language, which is the tradition of the House, will be maintained.

Gerald Kaufman: Yes, indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would never have referred to that document if the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire had not got himself into such a hysterical state about it, but I will now move on to the point that I wish to make in my brief contribution.
	One of the reasons why I am proud of the fact that we are about to give the Bill its Third Reading is that it fulfils a Labour party manifesto pledge, which I put before my constituents at the general election two years ago. Let us be clear about what will happen after the Bill leaves the House tonight. According to any interpretation whatever of the Salisbury convention, the other place must accept a Government Bill that has been passed by the House of Commons; it must accept any Bill that has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons; and, under the Salisbury convention, it must accept the fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. On each of those criteriaby the doctrine of leading Conservative, the Marquess of Salisburyit would be out of the question for another place to block the Bill.
	What I am saying is quite simply that we are at the end of an historic process, for which many people have fought for a very long time, as far as the House of Commons is concerned. It is now for Parliament, under the conventions established by both Houses, to accept the will of the House of Commonsthe will of the House of Commons, as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik), as first entrenched by a Liberal Government under the Parliament Act 1911, which was brought in by a Liberal Government. It is now for the whole of Parliament to respect the will of the people, as in a manifesto commitment, and for this Bill to become law and to be implemented as soon as possible.

Andrew George: I was proud to have taken on the rural affairs portfolio for my party in the autumn. What I had not appreciated at the time was that I had arrived just as the music was about to stop in the portfolio responsibility game of pass the exploding parcel. The Hunting Bill came beautifully wrapped with two camps of dogmatic enthusiasts who held equally blood-curdling views about each other and each other's positions.
	You are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the problem with this debate is that too much of it has not been sufficiently measured and has been too impassioned. What we need is to have a measured and considered debate. Sadly, we have not had that fully. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did not do the House a favour. To even refer to such a document that is so clearly preposterous, wrong and unfair implies a slur against two hon. Membersmy hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), under whose chairmanship I served on the Agriculture Committeewho do not deserve it. Although I disagree with the positions that they have taken, I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that has not helped in the respect that we should play down the passions and consider the issues.

Lembit �pik: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the middle way group has been frustrated by the occasionally preposterous unwillingness of those who oppose our position to listen to the information, not once in our history have we stooped as low as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to imply inferences that were clearly intended to besmirch? I hope that with the benefit of reflection he will not just rue the fact that he said it, but privately apologise to us.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) says anything in addition in his speech, I want to say to him that he should not seek to draw me into the argument. All that I have tried to rule is that the debate should be conducted in good order and with moderate language.

Andrew George: I accept your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall take those remarks no further. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has put his comments on the record.
	The fact is that this is a debate about a sport, and we know that high passions are felt when talking about a sport. I think that the lateand great, in some people's mindsBill Shankly, a former manager of Liverpool, when asked whether football was a matter of life and death, said that it was much more important than that. I have also argued on many occasions that God created the world so that we could play cricket. I understand the passions that people have in relation to sport, and I understand the passions of people who support the various forms of hunting. I supported hunting myself, coming from a farming background, and I understand well the strong passions of people in country areas and why those feelings are strongly expressed.

Alan Beith: I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise that, for some of us, the issue is not so much a passion for the sport or even a personal involvement in the activity, but it is a matter of liberal principle not to send people to prison for an activity that one cannot demonstrate is indefensible.

Andrew George: My right hon. Friend is right. Of course, we should raise the issue. We had a big debate in Committee about whose liberty we were attempting to defend.
	I know that many other Members wish to speak, so I simply say that I regret the fact that the Minister has not been successful. He approached Third Reading with measured and considered remarks, and that was the basis on which he has conducted himself throughout and also the basis of the principles that he originally brought forward when the Bill received its Second Reading. I supported the registration approach. I thought it was a workable and enforceable compromise. Although I will support the current BillI apologise to those Members who wish to reject itI thought that the registration scheme would have been more enforceable and workable, and the Minister implied that in his earlier remarks.
	I also regret the fact that the Minister did not accept the arguments for compensation. Although the new clause was not as well drafted as it could have been, I believe that, as the debate went on, he accepted the principle that compensation can be payable. It was simply

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that matter has been dealt with and is no longer in the Bill. He should not be talking about it on Third Reading.

Andrew George: I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to speak and are fully entitled to. I therefore bring my remarks to a conclusion.

Tony Banks: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the way in which he has conducted the Bill. That was done on the basis of a free vote of the House. Indeed, the Bill has changed as it has gone through the House; that is the way that we do things. On a free vote, we were entitled to act in the way that we did.
	The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said that the Bill had been hijacked by Back Benchers. Let me remind him that, on a free vote, 63 Ministers supported a total ban. A ban was also supported by a very honourable and brave group of Members of his own party, particularly the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) and for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Let us admit that this is a matter for Parliament and the Commons. We have discharged our duty in the way that we think fit.
	I also pay tribute to all the hard-working men and women of the animal welfare organisationsthe Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the League Against Cruel Sports and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
	A ban on hunting wild mammals with dogs is not the most important political issue facing the House or the country. Indeed, it is not the most important animal welfare issue, but it is not unimportant. It is no good Opposition Members saying that we have got more important things to do. I have sat through all these debates and I have never seen the House so full on both sides of the argument. We think it important enough for us to be here, and our constituents do so, too. I respect the arguments of those who are in favour of hunting, but I hope that they will also respect our arguments.
	This has been an important issue for the Government. Their credibility and honour hung on this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, we clearly gave an undertaking that we would deal with this matter. We are now dealing with it in the way that the people to whom we spoke and asked to vote for us anticipated that we would.

David Winnick: However important the vote will be tonight will it not be without value if the Lords reject the Bill and the Parliament Act is not used? Is it not absolutely essential for the Government to use the Parliament Act if the Lords reject the manifesto commitment made at the last election? We expect the Prime Minister to act in that way; we certainly hope that he will.

Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is something of an incendiary. I am not trying to inflame their lordships to rip the Bill to pieces. However, if they do, he is absolutely right. In the end, we should use the Parliament Actwhich is a matter for the Chair and not for the Governmentbecause the will of the elected House must prevail over that of the unelected House.
	I wish to allow other Members to speak, but my consistent approach has always been based on morality. It is absolutely immoral to slaughter animals and to take pleasure from inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of sport. Inflicting cruelty on animals in the name of sport is wrong. We might have been given dominion over animals but that is not absolute. I believe that we have been given a duty of care.
	May I respond to the British National party article that has been mentioned? Although I do not associate Opposition Members with the horrible article and group in any way, similar arguments sometimes seem to emerge from both. The headline asks why the Class Hate bigots of New Labour despise Middle Britain. The issue has never been a matter of class. It would make no difference whatsoever if all those who went hunting were paid up members of trade unions and new Labour and if they wore flat hats and clogs. Hunting is a question of morality and I must oppose it.

Henry Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Tony Banks: I shall give way to a descendant of a killer of a Prime Minister. My family has links with the Perceval family and we spit on the floor when we hear the name of Bellingham.

Henry Bellingham: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great collector of statutes and I gather that he has one in his home of Spencer Perceval, who was, indeed, shot by John Bellingham. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the immorality of killing animals. Does he apply that to the shooting of animals and the fishing of fish?

Tony Banks: I can say straight away that I certainly believe that that is true of shooting. [Interruption.] I do not understand why that would surprise anyone. However, I consider fishing to be different. [Hon. Members: Oh!] I shall not get involved with that during a Third Reading debate. We have debated the situation in the House ad nauseam. There is a line in politics and although one can never be as neat as everyone wants, my line excludes angling.
	My opinion on hunting is not a matter of class hatred but of principle and morality. We gave an undertaking to ban hunting and we are fulfilling our manifesto promise. There is a lot of passion surrounding the issue and I know that there will be difficulties getting the Bill through and some problems outside the House. However, in generations to come, those who follow us into the House will wonder what all the fuss was about, rather like we find it difficult to understand how anyone could have supported bull baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting and all the other disgusting practices that used to be called sports. I commend the Bill to the House and look forward to seeing it on the statute book.

James Paice: There is a farmer in my constituency who has created a series of angling ponds. One of the ponds contains a large catfish that weighs between 30 and 40 lb, which is caught at least once a week by anglers. That issue underlines one of the holes in the argument that fishing is somehow different that is made by those who wish to ban hunting. If cruelty is the fundamental issue, hon. Members who voted last week to ban hunting in its entirety should be equally in favour of a complete ban on angling. The hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) has just demonstrated the complete breakdown of their argument.

Martin Salter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Paice: No, we are very short of time.
	The only argument is whether the Bill will increase or decrease the overall welfare of the fox, hare, mink and deer populations of this country. Irrespective of one's bias, any clear and objective study of the Burns report would demonstrate that at the very leastI am being at my most generousthe jury is still out and the case for a ban has not been made. I believe passionately that the welfare of those animals will suffer as a result of the Bill. It is possible to say that individual animals might be better off because they will not be hunted.
	But we should be worried about the welfare of the speciesthe overall population and the number of animals. I do not believe that banning hunting will increase the welfare of the species. As one of my hon. Friends said, there is ample evidence that the overall welfare of species that are husbanded is enhanced even though they are occasionally hunted.
	The hon. Member for West Ham believes that the pursuit of an animal to kill it for sport is morally repugnant. He is entitled to that view, but people should make that decision for themselves and not impose it on others. That is the distinction. If the Bill were to improve the welfare of the species, reduce the amount of cruelty and enhance the conservation features of our countryside, I would support it, but that is not the case. All we are doing is meeting the hon. Gentleman's objective to reduce what he perceives as other people's pleasure in inflicting pain. I do not believe that to be the case, but even if it were, it would not be for the House to make that moral judgment. It is a matter of individual freedom and liberty. That is why I shall oppose the Bill.

Michael Foster: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister who has taken the Bill through the House. He made a gigantic effort and it has been, to use his words, an interesting experience. That is one of the great understatements. In my dealings with him, he has always been courteous, polite and professional, and I hold him in the highest regard as a Minister.
	As a small aside, however, there is one tiny bit of the Bill with which I am not perfectly happy. The Minister knows that I have misgivings about paragraph 2 of schedule 1 on terrier work. When the Secretary of State agrees to the guidelines, I look forward to her being sufficiently fair so that we avoid loopholes that may be exploited by people who want to conduct cruel activities.
	It is the job of the other place to review what we have done, to revise it and even to reform it, but it is not its job to thwart the will of this, the elected Chamber. I say with certainty that the manifesto commitment on which we were elected stated that we would bring the matter to a conclusion. The House has voted one way time and time again. We know what the conclusion must be for the elected Chamber to have its say. If we have to use the Parliament Act, it will be regrettable, but that is what we must do.
	It is now a matter of trust. We have the manifesto commitment and the will of the House. It is up to us as parliamentarians to ensure that we bring the matter to a conclusion. That is not just what we want, but what the vast majority of British people want, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
	The House has a responsibility to listen. It has a responsibility for tolerance, but that does not mean that we have to tolerate activities that are cruel, unnecessary and have no part in modern Britain. That has always been my objection to hunting with dogs. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) said, this is not a class issue; it never has been. It crosses those boundaries because it is about cruelty and animal welfare. We have got to the stage where Parliament must have its say. This is a matter of trust between the people and their Parliament, and that has to be sacrosanct because of what we believe is essential in parliamentary democracy.

Kate Hoey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it fair that you have called three speakers in favour of the Third Reading from this side of the House and nobody to represent those people in the Labour movement who oppose the Bill? [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) must control himself. I simply say to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that she has been here long enough not to question the prerogative of the Chair in determining who should be called in this House. It is always difficult to satisfy all hon. Members.
	It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [16 December and 1 July], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 145.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together

Douglas Hogg: Separately.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Merchant Shipping

That the draft Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Port Waste Reception Facilities) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 19th June, be approved.[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

European Communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Database Protection Agreement between the United Kingdom on behalf of the Isle of Man and the European Community) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 9th June, be approved.[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Animals

That the draft Avian Influenza and Newcastle Disease (England and Wales) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That
	(1) at the sittings on Monday 14th, Tuesday 15th, Wednesday 16th and Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Message from the Lords has been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons which has been appointed at that sitting has reported; and
	(2) at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he has reported the Royal Assent to any Act agreed upon by both Houses.[Paul Clark.]

Hon. Members: Object.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made,
	That at the sitting on Thursday 17th July, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment may be proceeded with, though opposed, for three hours, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.[Paul Clark.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Gregory Barker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the vote that has just taken place, only 317 Members voted in favour of Third Reading: fewer than an absolute majority. Given that the majority of Members failed to vote in favour of Third Reading, is it the Chair's opinion that this would be an appropriate piece of legislation on which to invoke the Parliament Act?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, but a point of observation, and the Chair certainly has no opinion about it.

PETITION
	  
	Trade Justice

Michael Weir: Many hon. Members will have been lobbied by the Trade Justice Movement within the past few weeks. I was lobbied by the Arbroath fair trade group and presented with this petition, together with supporting cards collected by our local churches, St. Andrews and St. Vigean's in Arbroath.
	The petition reads:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the Constituents of Angus
	Declares that they have great concerns about the imbalance in world trade and wish to see Trade Justice at the top of the Agenda at the Cancun summit.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that the UK government takes a lead in international trade negotiations to
	1. Stop forcing poor countries to open their markets; and champion their right to manage their own economies
	2. Regulate big business and their investments to ensure people and the environment come before profit
	3. Stop rich countries promoting the interests of big business through trade interventions that harm the poor and the environment
	4. Ensure trade policy is made in a fair, transparent and democratic way.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT (SUTTON COLDFIELD)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Paul Clark.]

Andrew Mitchell: I am enormously grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing me to initiate this debate on the Floor of the House. I should like, first and foremost, to congratulate the new Minister for Housing and Planning both on his promotion and on his elevation to the Privy Council a week or so ago. Those of us who form the brotherhood of Government Whips know how richly deserved his promotion is. Indeed, we have watched with great admiration the work that he did as Government Deputy Chief Whip, when he often displayed the cunning of a serpent and the guile of a fox. Indeed, we marvel at the Government's willingness to move him, especially in the light of last night's substantial revolt against their plans for foundation hospitals. It is particularly good of him, as the senior Minister with responsibility for planning, to respond to the debate.
	I am very much aware that individual planning matters are not generally a matter for the local Member of Parliament, but rightly rest with the local council. I pay tribute to all nine of Sutton Coldfield's councillors, who work extremely hard on important and difficult matters to do with planning in Sutton Coldfield. I particularly pay tribute to David Roy, who until recently was leader of the opposition on Birmingham council and is one of Sutton's most senior councillors. He is a member of the planning committee and therefore acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. He is enormously experienced in planning matters, as is acknowledged across all the parties represented on Birmingham council.
	Although planning is not usually a matter for the Member of Parliament, strategic planning issues are a different kettle of fish, and it is those that I want to discuss. I hope that the Minister accepts that I would not bring such matters before the House lightly. This is only the second Adjournment debate that I have sought and been awarded in the 12 years that I have been in the House of Commons. I do so first, because I believe that the issues that I want to raise are of far more than local significance, and secondly, because they are absolutely vital to the interests of my constituents.
	As you may recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sutton Coldfield is a hugely attractive place in which to live. People aspire to live there, not least because of the very high quality of our housing, the real sense of community and the very desirable local environment. The heart of my job as Sutton's Member of Parliament is to maintain and enhance the quality of that environment. Of course, I do not seek to preserve Sutton in aspic and I am conscious that affordable housing is important not least because of the substantial increase in house prices that has occurred locally in recent years.
	A pattern has developed: developers try to buy old houses with mature gardens and replace them with blocks of flats. That happened most recently in Lichfield road, Belwell lane, Tamworth road, Clarendon road and Welford road. I observed those developments with deep dismay. I found that my views were at least partly shared by the experienced planning team under Emrys Jones in Birmingham. They are widely shared by my constituents and the highly articulate and concerned local groups, such as the Little Sutton action group, that have sprung up. Their arguments are utterly persuasive and unanswerable. They are delivered politely, decently and correctly. They are right.
	Replacing old houses with multiple dwellings has a tremendous effect on doctors' surgeries, schools, local facilities, cars, parking and our local roads. Each development may appear isolated at the time, but together, their effect is incalculable. We shall wake up one morning in Sutton Coldfield and find that the whole character of the town has changed and gone for ever if these piecemeal developments continue.
	Against that background, two recent development proposals dramatically exemplify the problem. The first is in Jockey road, which is a major road in my constituency. Developers want to demolish five homes and replace them with 18 houses and six apartments.
	I had to rub my eyes in disbelief and check that it was not April fool's day when I heard about the second proposal. Monmouth Drive fronts on to Sutton's famous park. It was proposed to demolish four large Victorian villas with lovely mature gardens and replace them with 25 apartments in three blocks. There are many more such developments, which I have no time to mention. Proceeding with them would constitute a grotesque act of vandalism. After much local debate and concern, nearly all the proposals were rejected. Many will be the subject of appeal.
	A proposal to demolish two beautiful detached houses in their own gardens on Four Oaks road, adjacent to the Four Oaks conservation area, was rejected, but the decision was overturned on appeal. The planners lost the battle, we lost the battle and 15 apartments were won on appeal at the end of last month. Every successful application encourages others in the immediate vicinity. The cumulative effect lies outside the consideration of the planning process, but it causes genuine concern.
	As I said, almost all the vexatious applications have been turned down. However, in cases when the planning authority determines that a proposal is unacceptable, the applicant has the right of appeal. Far more often than is right, the applicant has the possibility of being granted planning permission. Those who object have no right of appeal. It is unfair that in planning matters, one side has recourse to an appeal mechanism if aggrieved by a decision, whereas the other side has no such right. There is no coherent reason for the appeal process in planning matters to be totally one sided.
	It has been argued that allowing objectors to appeal would delay development and increase the costs of the prospective developer. I acknowledge that an even-handed appeal process would delay some developments. However, planning authorities can currently require archaeological studies of sites to be undertaken at the developer's cost. Such studies obviously cause some delay and additional cost, but are accepted as proper and appropriate.
	Using the cost and delay argument to justify the current position is analogous to claiming that allowing appeals in the courts is unwarranted. We have many appeal and review processes because it is recognised that mistakes will sometimes be made in all fields of human endeavour. The glaring omission is the right of objectors to appeal against planning decisions.
	The planning authority is ever mindful of the possibility of its decisions being challenged by prospective developers and of being charged with the legal costs of defending a successful appeal against the original decision to refuse planning consent. I have no doubt that that knowledge has an effect on some decisions that might be termed as marginal. It is human nature to err on the side of caution in such circumstances.
	Planning policy guidance note 3, published on 7 March 2000, exacerbates the general problem that I have outlined. Paragraph 54 of PPG3 encourages
	making best use of previously developed land
	and
	improving the quality and attractiveness of residential areas.
	In areas such as Sutton Coldfield, it is arguable that those two requirements are mutually contradictory. The paragraph goes on to urge
	more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment.
	I do not believe that what I am saying amounts to nimbyism. I understand what the Government are trying to achieve in respect of density, but we need a far more horses-for-courses approach to different areas. For example, I support the development in Brassington avenue, right in the heart of my constituency, which is sensible and will include 300 flats. It is near the station in the town centre and is an ideal place for such density. One of our local action groups against such developments has produced an excellent and expert publication called Sutton Coldfield Under Threat. During the course of a well-argued document, which lists a number of deeply vexatious planning applications, the group draws attention to a proposal and photographs its site on Mere Green road in my constituency, where, on the site of a former filling station, a sensible planning application could be supported and go through. It needs further refinement, but my point is that where these proposals are right in principle, we will support them.
	Contrast that with the destruction of old housing and gardens to open up back landwhat developers describe as brown land. That is absolutely outside the spirit of what the Minister or I would ever define as brown land. If one journeys by train from Sutton Coldfield into the middle of Birmingham to New street, there is extensive evidence of what I mean by brown land and what I am sure the Minister would mean by it. It may not be as profitable for developers as carving flats out of Sutton Coldfield, but it is much more in keeping with the spirit of what we at Westminster intended brown land development to be.
	Those infill developments should be massively discouraged. PPG3, paragraph 52, states:
	The Government attaches particular importance to the 'greening' of residential environments. Greening initiatives can enhance quality.
	That is absolutely right, but many of the developments sought, and some that have been granted, are contradictory to the greening of our environment.
	I have the highest regard for the individual planning officers with whom I deal in my constituency, and life is made more difficult for them by the lack of neighbourhood plans. They have to rely on the broad policies contained with the city-wide unitary development plan. The UDP serves its purpose, but its purpose is that of a broad strategic view of a city of around 1 million people and it cannot adequately reflect the individual characteristics of the many neighbourhoods within Birmingham or Sutton Coldfield.
	Our planning frameworks fail because the development of neighbourhood planswith the active involvement of local residents, local voluntary groups and organisations and locally elected representativesis not central to the process, but, as set out so clearly in PPG3, an optional addition that is consequently given low priority. The Government should change that.
	We remain continually at risk from developers cherry-picking PPG3 and related planning law, pushing ever harder at precedent. Technical modifications may be made, winning support on appeal for applications that are wrong in principle and should never have got that far. The balance needs to be redressed in favour of our local communities. That is my central point.
	PPG3, paragraph 55, suggests that
	Local planning authorities should develop a shared vision with their local communities of the type of residential environment they wish to see in their area and articulate this through their development plan policies and supplementary planning guidance.
	Places for Living, a Birmingham document, states:
	The involvement of the Planning Authority, the local community and other relevant bodies at an early state would be advisable to speed up the decision making process and arrive at a mutually agreeable solution.
	That is right, but it needs more Government involvement to make it a reality.
	I hope that when the Minister visits the midlands, he will come to my constituency to meet some of our elected councillors and some members of the groups most closely involved with all these matters, so that he can hear for himself and see the practical suggestions that we would wish to make to give intent to the laws passed on these matters in the House of Commons.
	In ending my speech, I want to quote from a letter from Ros Toon, of the Little Sutton Action Group. She says:
	The vision the people of Sutton Coldfield have at this moment is a nightmarish one whereby good quality housing is lost, insensitive developments are approved whereby intense dwellings are introduced into neighbourhoods far exceeding the present density, completely out of character with the area and failing to enhance the locality in any way.
	That observation is surely at the heart of my remarks.
	I repeat my thanks to Mr. Speaker for granting this debate, and I thank the Minister for attending at this very late hour. I reiterate that we must conserve and enhance the qualities that make Sutton Coldfield a desirable place to live. We must make sure that the vagaries, doubts and lack of protection currently afforded to my constituents are ended. We look to the Government to redress the balance and to address the serious threat that is currently upon us, which Ministers should have the inclinationand do have the powerto diminish.

Keith Hill: I begin, as is customary, by congratulating the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) on securing this debate and thanking him for bringing his concerns about planning and developmentnot only in his constituency but further afieldto the attention of the House. I have listened to his arguments very carefully. I should also add that I am most grateful to him for his felicitations on my recent elevation. After such warmth, the prospect of visiting him becomes almost irresistible, should I find myself in his neck of the woods.
	On a more serious note, the hon. Gentleman will of course appreciate that because of the quasi-judicial responsibilities of the First Secretary of State, my ability to comment on particular planning cases is restricted, but I am able to talk about the policy framework within which decisions are taken.
	The Government want everyone to share in the nation's prosperity, and at its most fundamental level that includes ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to have a decent home. However difficult it may be, we have to balance social, environmental and economic considerations in meeting the nation's housing needs. The fact is that for decades, this country has failed to build enough homes in the right places, and at the right cost, to meet its housing needs. Thanks to this historical underinvestment in housing of all kinds, parts of the country such as Sutton Coldfield have come under tremendous pressure. They have strong housing markets and are rightly seen as highly desirable places in which to live.
	The hon. Gentleman highlighted the level of concern in his constituency about the pressure for development, and I want to respond by focusing on two main aspects, the first of which is how we can create sustainable communities everywhere, and not just in housing hot-spots such as Sutton Coldfield. To do that, we need to make our town and city centres more attractive places to live in, so that we take some of the heat off the peripheral suburbs and surrounding boroughs. Secondly, it is right that places such as Sutton Coldfield should continue to accept their share of appropriate development through the planning systema point that the hon. Gentleman seemed to concede. The question is: how to do that in a way that offers new homes, with the minimum possible impact on the environment? I want to address both those pointsthe wider and the more local contextsin more detail.
	Sutton Coldfield is coming under such pressure for development because there is unmet housing need and people want to live there. It is vital that places with the strongest housing markets are not left to shoulder an undue amount of the burden in meeting this housing need. We must make sure that other places are seen as attractive locations to liveespecially the brownfield land in our towns and cities.
	For many years, successive Governments did little to stop the mass exodus of people from inner cities such as Birmingham's. In the early 1990s, only an average 45 dwellings per year were built in Birmingham's city centre. Instead of staying in the city, an increasing number of people left for the suburbs and the ex-urbs, and the fundamental causes of urban decline were never tackled head on. Our policies are having a positive impact by encouraging councils such as Birmingham's to promote and develop their inner cities as attractive places to live.
	In the 1990s, Birmingham recognised that housing in central locations would reduce pressure for development in peripheral areas of the city such as Sutton Coldfield, and they set out to encourage more city centre housing. Now more and more homes are being built in the city centre. A significant proportion of new dwellings have appeared in the jewellery quarter and the convention centre quarter, close to the flagship Bridley Place development. There is potential for 3,500 dwellings as part of the major eastside development. Over the past three years, home completions in the city centre have grown from 331 to 912 per annum.
	That trend looks set to continue. A further 1,793 dwellings were under construction and 3,550 had planning permission in April 2003, and the unitary development plan alterations have set a target of 10,000 new dwellings in the city centre by 2011. Under policies pursued by previous Governments, those homes would not have been built or would have been built further out on the edge of the city or the countryside. Either way, it would have been bad news for Sutton Coldfield.
	In addition to making the city centre an attractive place in which to live, Birmingham is also collaborating with Government policies to turn round the areas in need of regeneration beyond the city centre. For example, Birmingham is committed to regenerating Attwood Green, a large estate on the city centre fringe, which is being redeveloped to provide between 1,100 and 1,600 mixed-tenure dwellings.
	After years in which the housing problems of the inner city continued to escalate, the Government are taking positive action to ensure that all the neighbourhoods of Birmingham and elsewhere are viable, sustainable communities. Overall, of the housing completions in Birmingham under regional planning guidance, 81 per cent. have been built on previously developed land. The UDP alterations expect 82 per cent. of all new dwellings to be built on previously developed land, and Birmingham is not proposing any further greenfield land allocations. Compact development using brownfield land first means that we use less greenfield land. The more the existing inner urban area can accommodate people and homes, the less the need to look further afield.
	That is not to say that Sutton Coldfield, or places like it, can pull up the drawbridge and say no to any more development. Sutton Coldfield has housing needs just like any community, and it must play its part to provide the right kinds of homes, which is not to say that development must not be controlled. It is for a local authority to determine whether particular residential areas are of such significance that being given special status should preserve their character. For example, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Four Oaks estate in Sutton Coldfield includes a number of fine arts-and-crafts style private houses and was designated a conservation area in 1986. A special set of development and conservation guidelines apply to protect the unique character of that area.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern that the reuse of land that has already been used for development sometimes means that existing homes are demolished and replaced with new housing, so let me say something that I hope will go some way to meeting that concern. The demolition of homes is currently covered by a general planning permission granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, subject to a prior approval arrangement with the local planning authority.
	Last year the Government published the planning statement Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning. One of the proposals in the statement was to review the generally permitted development order to see whether existing permitted development rights were still appropriate. That project is well under way, and we expect the researchers to report back to us shortly. The review provides an opportunity to consider the need for change to the existing demolition controls. We will, of course, be looking very carefully at the recommendations of the research report when we get them. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.
	When housing is built, we expect all new residential development to be of high qualityirrespective of the density of the development. Well planned and well designed new development on brownfield sites can help provide the new homes needed in our communities and produce attractive places in which to live, but inadequate planning and poor design put at risk both the provision of new homes and environmental quality.
	The Government's policy on those issues is outlined in planning policy guidance note 3PPG3, to which the hon. Gentleman made frequent reference. PPG3 encourages well designed housing. It calls for homes that meet the needs of the whole community, and promotes the reuse of previously developed land. PPG3 also requires higher density development in order to minimise the impact on the environment.
	It is important for plans to reflect the full set of policies in PPG3, including its emphasis on the quality of the place and living environment being created by new development. We expect a site suitable for residential development to be tested against the criteria set out in PPG3. Those include environmental constraints and the capacity of the infrastructurefor example, public transport and social infrastructure such as schools and hospitalsto absorb further development. Those criteria will rule out unsuitable sites, but PPG3 also advises that new housing development should not be viewed in isolation. Considerations of design and layout must be informed by the wider context. PPG3 policies make it clear that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should reject poor design.

Andrew Mitchell: I am listening carefully to the Minister's remarks. I do not expect him to give me a detailed answer tonight to some of the specific points that I made about PPG3, but perhaps he could write to me in due course. I would be most interested to hear his Department's latest views.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I listened carefully to his observations and I shall study the report of his remarks. I also undertake to write to him on the specific issues that he raised.
	PPG3 encourages local authorities to develop a shared vision with their communities of the types of residential environments that they wish to see in their area, but that does not mean that we cannot at the same time make better use of land by building at higher densities than has been the case previously. A key factor in achieving that is the need for new developments to have regard to good design. Good design and layout can help to avoid unnecessary development in the countryside and secure an appropriate mix of dwelling size and type to meet local housing needs.
	In seeking to improve the quality and attractiveness of residential development, PPG3 advises that local planning authorities and developers should think imaginatively about designs and layouts that make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment. Local authorities are expected to adopt policies that help to create places that are attractive and have their own distinctive identity, but also respect and enhance local character.
	The hon. Gentleman has expressed the concerns of his constituents and I share his belief that, in meeting the housing needs of today's and future generations, we should minimise the environmental impact of development. We need to encourage developers and local authorities to work with local communities to promote appropriate and well designed development. It is too easy to stick our heads in the sand and say no more development. Likewise it is too easy, as previous Governments did, to allow pepper-potted sprawl to march across the country. Our approach is to create sustainable communities and ensure that well planned, well thought out development leaves a legacy that future generations will thank us for.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.